Madras High Court

Lalitha vs Rajendiran on 27 August, 2021

                                                                       C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 27.08.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                            C.R.P.(NPD)No.4227 of 2015
                                               and M.P.No.1 of 2015

                      1.Lalitha
                      2.Kalidas
                      3.Minor Sanjay
                      4.Minor Dharshan
                      (Minors rep. By their next friend
                      and guardian, 2nd petitioner)                               .. Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                      Rajendiran                                                  .. Respondent

                      Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
                      Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.07.2015
                      made in I.A.No.247 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of the
                      Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.

                                         For Petitioners      : Mr.V.Raghavachari
                                                                for Mr.S.C.Vishwanth

                                         For Respondent       : Mr.P.Valliappan



                      1/10

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                       C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015


                                                      ORDER

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and

decreetal order dated 16.07.2015 made in I.A.No.247 of 2014 in

O.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court,

Dharmapuri.

2.The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of

the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri. The respondent filed the said

suit for specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 20.10.2010.

The petitioners were set exparte and exparte decree was passed on

29.02.2012. The petitioners filed I.A.No.247 of 2014 to condone the

delay of 921 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, by the order dated

17.04.2015, condoned the delay on condition that the petitioners shall

deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- into the Court, on or before 03.06.2015.

As per the earlier order dated 17.04.2015, the petitioners did not deposit

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

the said amount within the time limit fixed by the Court and hence, the

learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, by the impugned order

dated 16.07.2015, dismissed I.A.No.247 of 2014.

3.Against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.07.2015 made in

I.A.No.247 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2011, the petitioners have come out

with the present Civil Revision Petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

when the Civil Revision Petition was taken up for admission, this Court,

by the order dated 28.10.2015, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum

of Rs.3,50,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, within a period of four weeks from

that date, as a condition for granting stay. The petitioners deposited the

said amount. According to the petitioners, they have deposited another

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of the suit, as per the oral order of this

Court. The petitioners have filed a challan to show the deposit made by

them and also an affidavit filed by the 1 st petitioner and thus, prayed for

setting aside the order in I.A.No.247 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of

his case, relied on the judgments:

(i) (2015) 17 SCC 769 [Jaswal Neco Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of

Customs],

(ii) (1981) 3 SCC 592 [R.K.Khandelwal Vs. State of U.P] and

(iii) (2003) 9 SCC 606 [Banarsi Vs. Ram Phal]

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submitted that in view of the exparte decree passed, the sale deed was

executed in favour of the respondent on 01.09.2015. The respondent has

spent a sum of Rs.2,49,980/- towards stamp duty, registration charges

and incidental expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, relied on the following judgments:

(i) 1997 (1) CTC 580 [Sundarammal Vs. Karuppannan and

another],

(ii)2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 864 [K.M.Azmathullah Badsha Vs.

Santhi Swarup Patnaik and others],

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

(iii) 2019 (4) CTC 61 [Chandra and others Vs. M.Devendran],

(iv) AIR 2019 Supreme Court 3225 [Robin Thapa Vs. Rohit

Dora],

(v) 2020 (6) MLJ 617 [Meenatchi Vs. Andal] and

(vi)Order in C.R.P.(NPD).No.959 of 2018 [Muthalammal and

others Vs. K.P.Natarajan and another]

and submitted that the petitioners may be directed to pay the amounts

spent by the respondent for execution and registration of the sale deed.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in reply,

submitted that the petitioners have already deposited a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of the suit. The sale deed, at this stage need

not be set aside. If the petitioners succeed in the suit, the respondent can

take Rs.5,00,000/- now in the Court deposit and also surrender the sale

deed to the authority and get back the stamp duty paid by him, deducting

6% of the same. If the petitioners lose their case, the sale deed will be

valid and petitioners will be entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- deposited by them

to the credit of the suit.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9.From the materials on record, it is seen that the Trial Court, by

the order dated 17.04.2015, imposed a condition to deposit a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- for condoning the delay in filing the petition to set aside the

exparte decree. The petitioners did not comply with the said condition.

Hence, the said I.A. was dismissed by the impugned order dated

16.07.2015. The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition,

challenging the said order. As per the order of this Court dated

28.10.2015, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as condition

for stay. Subsequently, as per the oral order of this Court, which is

admitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent,

the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of the suit.

Thus, the condition imposed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Dharmapuri, was complied by the petitioners as per the order of this

Court. Meanwhile, based on the exparte decree, the sale deed was

executed in favour of the respondent on 01.09.2015 and the respondent

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

has spent a sum of Rs.2,49,980/- towards stamp papers, registration

charges and incidental expenses. Considering the above materials and the

arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the

petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the credit of

O.S.No.35 of 2011, within a period of three weeks, from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, being the amount spent by the respondent

for getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour. The

learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that on

08.03.2012, he has deposited the balance sale consideration of

Rs.13,00,000/-.

10.Pending suit, the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri,

is directed to deposit-

(i) the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited by the petitioners,

(ii)the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- deposited by the respondent on

08.03.2012 and

(iii) the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to be deposited by the

petitioners,

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4227 of 2015

totalling, a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- in a fixed deposit, initially for a period

of one year and renewable thereafter, till the disposal of the suit.

Depending upon the outcome of the suit, the parties are entitled to the

amounts in the Court deposit. The petitioners have deposited the amount

alleged to have been borrowed, together with interest, to the credit of the

suit. In view of such deposit, the respondent is not entitled to any cost.

11.With the above direction, the impugned order of the learned

Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 16.07.2015, made in

I.A.No.247 of 2014 is set aside. The learned Principal District Judge,

Dharmapuri, is directed to number I.A. filed to restore the suit and

dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.

With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.