N KALIMMUTHU Vs. RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner / plaintiff sought to file a suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai against the defendants / respondents herein, seeking the relief of Specific Performance of the suit property and the Trial Court refused to number the suit and returned the same, stating that the suit is barred by limitation. Against such return, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff that a sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.09.2008 and the plaintiff had also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance at the time of sale agreement and the balance was agreed to be settled in 11 monthly installments. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that though the plaintiff was ready and willing to settle the amount in advance, the defendants neither received the same nor came forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 07.01.2013 to the plaintiffs in this regard and though the notice was duly received by the 2nd defendant, the notice sent to the 1st defendant was returned with an endorsement "left India".

(3.) The revision petitioner / plaintiff states that he had received a notice dated 17.11.2014 from the defendants making false allegations against him for non compliance of the sale agreement, for which, the plaintiff cast a reply notice dated 19.11.2014 and the notice was received by the Advocate of the defendants and as usual, the notice sent to the 1st defendant was returned with the same endorsement. It is further stated that the above act of the defendants would make it clear that they purposely evaded in execution of sale deed as per the sale agreement, thereby cheated the plaintiff. Though the sale agreement was dated 26.09.2008, the plaintiff came to the knowledge of refusal of performance by the defendants only on 17.11.2014 and immediately, thereafter, the suit was filed on 24.11.2014. It is contended that the suit was filed well within time and the Trial Court, instead of numbering the suit and deciding the issue of limitation during trial, has simply returned the plaint and the said return is bad in law and therefore, it is prayed that the order of return needs interference by this Court.