HUSSAIN ALI KHAN Vs. SHIVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment-debtor is the revisionist herein. Aggrieved against an order If made in E.A. 128/84 in E.P. 28/83 in O.S. 576/78, this revision is preferred.

(2.) The relevant material circumstances that led to the filing of this revision, in brief, are: The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. 576/78 for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of a house. That was decreed ex parte on 14 12-1982. Thereafter, a petition to set aside the same was filed in I.A. 123/83 with a condone delay petition. Since the petitioner failed to prosecute the same properly, those petitions also were dismissed for default many a time and ultimately I.A. 123/83 was in consequence dismissed on 21-9-1984 as against which a Civil Revision Petition was preferred to the High Court, which also met with the same fate and so the decree dated 14-12-1982 became final. Thereafter, E.P. 28/83 was filed and a counter was also filed and the Court directed the respondent herein to deposit the requisite stamps for the execution of the sale deed on 18-10-1984 and the stamps were deposited on 31-10-1984 as directed by the Court. However, on 8-11-1984 the petitioner filed E.A. 108/84 to set aside the order dated 18-10-1984 directing the respondent to deposit the non-judicial stamps. That was dismissed on 13-12-1984. In the meantime, O.S. 3835/84 was filed in the Court of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court by the alleged tenant of the petitioner judgment-debtor, to which the respondent decree-holder herein and the petitioner judgment-debtor were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. On 15-12-1984 a counter was filed by the judgment-debtor to the injunction petition fried by the plaintiff therein, asserting his title.

(3.) After dismissal of E.A. 108/84, the present E.A. No. 128/84 was filed raising for the first time the objection to the effect that the judgment-debtor has no title to the suit house as no sale deed has been executed by the Housing Board in favour of the judgment-debtor as the consideration by way of instalments has not been folly paid and, therefore, the decree passed in the suit filed by the respondent-decree-holder is a nullity within the meaning of Sec. 13 of the Specific Relief Act. The said application was, however, dismissed. Consequently, this revision is preferred.