PRITHIVIRAJ Vs. R. VENKATESAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2011 made in O.S. No.590 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) The petitioner is fourth defendant, first respondent is plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.590 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The first respondent filed said suit against the respondents 2 to 4 and petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.05.2011. The respondents 2 to 4 are the owners of the property. They appointed petitioner as their power agent by registered deed of power of attorney dated 23.11.2010 to deal with the suit property including power of alienation. The petitioner as an agent of the respondents 2 to 4 entered into an agreement of sale dated 21.05.2011 with the first respondent to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27,25,000/-. First respondent paid a sum of Rs. 10,10,000/- as an advance to the petitioner. According to the first respondent, petitioner was postponing execution of the sale deed and hence, first respondent filed said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the suit was posted on 28.10.2011, the matter was referred to Mediation and posted before the Mediation on 29.10.2011. On that date, all the parties and their advocates appeared before the Mediation and the second respondent accepted his liability to the petitioner and as such the matter was adjourned to 31.10.2011. On that date, first respondent submitted that the second respondent is not willing to settle the matter and suit was directed to be posted before the Court on 02.11.2011. On that date, the parties filed their vakalat and suit was adjourned to 03.11.2011. On 03.11.2011, suit was adjourned to 28.11.2011 for filing written statement by petitioner and respondents 2 to 4. On 04.11.2011, when the counsel for the petitioner verified the Court diary, it was found that the suit was decreed as per the memo filed by the respondents 2 to 4 submitting to decree.