T. VINAYAGA MUDALIAR Vs. DELHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.659 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham against the respondents for specific performance of the contract executed between him and the respondents 1 and 2. Though the said suit was dismissed with regard to the specific performance of the contract, the defendants 1 and 2 were directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.70,000/- received by them to the plaintiff/ revision petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization. The revision petitioner filed an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.659 of 1999 against the 3rd respondent before the District Munsif, Gudiyatham, The District Munsif, Gudiyatham, vide his orders dated 16.07.2009, rejected the petition on the ground that since no decree was passed against the 3rd respondent, the decree holder cannot file an execution petition against him. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the property was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent and though the plaintiff was not granted a decree for specific performance of the contract, was nevertheless granted a decree to get back the advance amount from the defendants 1 & 2. His specific contention is that since the 3rd respondent is the purchaser of the suit property, he is also liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff.

(3.) No appearance on behalf of the respondent.