N.Sankaralingam vs V.Raghuraman
2021 Latest Caselaw 21002 Mad

                                                                              C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 21.10.2021

                                                    CORAM :

                              THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                              C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             C.M.P.No.17053 of 2021

                     N.Sankaralingam                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                          Vs

                     1.V.Raghuraman
                     2.Kaliyanna Gounder
                     3.Vangalayee
                     4.Palanisamy
                     5.N.Sureshbabu                                             ... Respondents


                     PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil
                     Procedure Code praying to call for the records of the lower Court and set
                     aside the fair order and decretal order dated 31.08.2021 passed in
                     R.E.A.No.30 of 2021 in R.E.P.No.19 of 2000 in O.S.No.366 of 1997
                     passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge at Attur and allow this Civil Revision.


                                         For Petitioner        : Mr.Vivekanandhan.

                                         For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghuraman,
                                                           Party-in-person.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/8
                                                                                   C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021




                                                         ORDER

This Petition is filed challenging the order passed in

R.E.A.No.30 of 2021 in R.E.P.No.19 of 2000 in O.S.No.366 of 1997

passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Attur.

2.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there

was an exparte decree passed against the Petitioner in O.S.No.366 of

1997. O.S.No.366 of 1997 was filed by the First Respondent,

V.Raghuraman against the Petitioner and other Respondents seeking the

relief of specific performance of the contract on the basis of the sale

agreement dated 15.10.1993.

3.It is specifically alleged in the plaint that the Defendants 1 to

3 in the Suit have sold the Suit properties to the Defendants 4 and 5 on

16.11.1994. However, the First Respondent / Plaintiff has not sought for

the relief for declaration or cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the

Defendants 4 and 5 in the Suit. Though the Suit was decreed exparte,

there is no specific decree passed against the Defendants 4 and 5. The

decree was passed only against the Defendants 1 to 3 who executed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

sale deed in favour of the First Respondent / Plaintiff. He further

submitted that the Petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 2021 with one

Sureshbabu against the Respondents 1 to 4 and four others seeking the

relief of declaring the title over the property and for other reliefs.

4.When the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2021 is pending, the

proceedings in R.E.P.No.19 of 2000 cannot go on. Therefore, the

Petitioner filed R.E.A.No.30 of 2021 under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Civil

Procedure Code for staying the further proceedings in R.E.P.No.19 of

2000 till the disposal of the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2021. However,

without considering the Petitioner's case, the Learned Subordinate Judge,

Attur dismissed the stay Petition. Against the said order of dismissal,

this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5.In response, the First Respondent, V.Raghuraman who

appeared as party in person submitted that the sale agreement, in favour

of him, was a registered sale agreement. After knowing well that sale

agreement in his favour, was a registered sale agreement, the Defendants

4 and 5 in the Suit viz., the Petitioner herein and one Sureshbabu had

deliberately purchased the Suit properties from the owners, Defendants 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

to 3 in the Suit. They have also not contested the Suit. The Suit was

decreed exparte on 06.04.1999. The Petitioner is bound by decree for the

reason that no steps had been taken to set aside the exparte decree or to

file an Appeal against the exparte decree. Already the sale deed was

executed in favour of the First Respondent and the R.E.P.No.19 of 2000

is pending for delivery of the property. He is fighting this case from

1994 and therefore, he prayed for confirming the order of the Learned

Subordinate Judge, Attur and for dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.

6.Considered the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for

the Petitioner and the First Respondent / Party-in-person and perused the

records.

7.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Suit in

O.S.No.366 of 1997 was filed by the First Respondent against the

Petitioner and others for the relief of specific performance of contract on

the basis of registered sale agreement dated 15.10.1993. The Petitioner

and other Defendants in the Suit entered appearance. However, for the

reasons best known to them, they have not contested the Suit and

therefore, exparte decree came to be passed on 06.04.1999. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

8.It appears that no steps had been taken for setting aside the

exparte decree or to file an Appeal against the exparte Judgment and

decree. Exparte decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 1997 on 06.04.1999

becomes final. It is no doubt that the Petitioner and other Defendants in

the Suit are bound by the decree. The contention of the Learned Counsel

for the Petitioner that there was no decree passed against him and

therefore, decree cannot be executed against him cannot be accepted for

the reason that the Petitioner and one Sureshbabu stepped into the shoes

of the owners of the property viz., Defendants 1 to 3 viz., Kaliyanna

Gounder, Vangalayee and Palanisamy. Therefore, the decree passed

against the aforesaid persons is binding on the Petitioner viz.,

Sankaralingam and one Sureshbabu. Though the Suit was decreed

exparte on 06.04.1999, the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2021 is filed only on

21.01.2021 and obviously, to scuttle the process of execution of decree.

Therefore, this Court finds no reason to stay the further proceedings in

R.E.P.No.19 of 2000 and Petition filed for staying, in R.E.A.No.30 of

2021 was rightly dismissed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Attur.

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned

Subordinate Judge, Attur and thus, the order of the Learned Subordinate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

Judge, Attur is confirmed.

9.Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

21.10.2021 ay/jai

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

To

The Subordinate Judge, Attur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

ay

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.17053 of 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.No.2244 of 2021

Dated :21.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/