Madras High Court
Vijayan vs R.Thiyagarajan on 7 September, 2021
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRP. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2510 of 2019
Vijayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. R.Thiyagarajan
2. S.Ravikumar ... Respondents in both petitions
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2018 passed in
I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S. No.83 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Villupuram, by allowing the application with costs.
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2511 of 2019
Vijayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. R.Thiyagarajan
2. S.Ravikumar ... Respondents in both petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2018 passed in
I.A.No.76 of 2018 in O.S. No.83 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Villupuram, by allowing the application with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr. Senthil.S.
(in both petitions)
For Respondent-1 : Mr. R.Agilesh
2 : No Appearance
(in both petitions)
***
COMMON O RD E R
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the common order
passed in I.A. No.278 of 2018 and I.A. No.76 of 2018 in O.S. No.83 of 2014 by
the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, on 30.11.2018.
2. The first respondent plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.83 of 2014 against
the second respondent defendant for enforcing the specific performance of the
contract on the basis of sale agreement dated 20.09.2012 and for recovery of
possession of the suit properties. This suit came to be decreed ex parte on
07.08.2014. The petitioner herein is the third party to proceedings in O.S.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
No.83 of 2014. The case of the petitioner is that he entered into a registered
sale agreement with the second respondent defendant on 02.09.2013. The
respondents colluded together and created an antidated sale agreement dated
20.09.2012 and on that basis, the first respondent filed the suit for specific
performance. The second respondent deliberately remained ex parte and an ex
parte decree was passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.
No.270 of 2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant in
the suit and filed an application I.A. No.76 of 2018, to condone the delay of
323 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. On considering the
rival submissions, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dismissed
both the petitions. Against the said dismissal, these Civil Revision Petitions are
preferred.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
agreement executed by the second respondent in his favour is a registered
agreement. The suit in O.S. No.83 of 2014 was filed subsequent to the
agreement dated 02.09.2013, in his favour. The registration of document is like
a statutory notice to everyone concerned. Both the respondents colluded
together and created an unregistered sale agreement dated 20.09.12 and filed a
collusive suit and the first respondent got the ex parte decree. He also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
submitted that he filed a suit in O.S. No.99 of 2014 for enforcing the specific
performance of the contract on the basis of registered sale agreement dated
02.09.2013, against the first respondent and impleaded the respondents in this
petition as defendants in the suit and that the suit is pending. It is further
submitted that the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No.83 of 2014, is a collusive
decree. Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, did not give any reasons
for decreeing the suit. The judgment is a non-speaking judgment. Therefore, ex
parte judgment has to be set aside and the petitioner must be impleaded as a
defendant and contest the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this plea made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in pursuance of the ex
parte decree, sale deed was executed and possession was taken. When the
petitioner is not party to O.S. No.83 of 2014, he cannot seek to set aside the ex
parte decree and implead himself as defendant. Hence he prayed for confirming
the order of the learned Principal District Judge, for dismissal of these Civil
Revision Petitions.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The issue in
this case is that the petitioner claims that he is a holder of registered sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
agreement dated 02.09.2013 and to deny his right of enforcing the sale
agreement, the respondents have colluded together, created an unregistered sale
agreement dated 20.09.2012 and the first respondent also got an ex parte
decree. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the suit in O.S. No.83 of
2014 and he has filed a suit in O.S. No.99 of 2014 for enforcing the specific
performance of contract on the basis of sale agreement dated 02.09.2013.
When he is not a party to O.S. No.83 of 2014, obviously he cannot seek to set
aside the ex parte decree. Now that the decree is fully executed by executing
the sale deed and also by delivering possession of the property. Be that as it
may, there is already a suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.99 of 2014, in
which the respondents are parties to the suit as defendants. If really the
petitioner is able to prove that the unregistered sale agreement dated
20.09.2012, was created by the respondents collusively to defeat the claim of
the petitioner on the basis of registered sale agreement dated 02.09.2013, there
is a possibility of getting a favourable judgment from the Court.
6. In view of the judgment in O.S. No.83 of 2014 and execution of sale
and delivery of possession in terms of decree, the petitioner is given permission
to file amendment petition to amend the prayers in O.S. No.99 of 2014,
appropriately by raising the pleas with regard to challenging the unregistered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
sale agreement dated 20.09.2012 and seek relief in accordance with law. At this
point of time, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the
common order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in
I.A. Nos.278 & 76 of 2018 in O.S. No.83 of 2014, dated 30.11.2018 and the
same is confirmed.
Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
07.09.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
Copy To:
The Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2019
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN. J.,
bkn
CRP. (NPD) No.2510 & 2511 of 2019
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
