The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to comply with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A, CPC rendered the decree for specific performance of the contract inexecutable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3.8.2018, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc. (J) Case No. 11/2018, in connection with T. Ex. No. 14/2015.

Facts of the case

3. The respondents are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 11/2013, which was filed against the petitioner-defendant herein for specific performance of contract (i.e., agreement for sale), execution and registration of sale deed, recovery of possession, alternatively praying for decree for Rs. 15.00 lakh as compensation and damages in addition to compensation under section 73 of the Contract Act, for permanent injunction, cost and any other reliefs. As per the plaint, the agreed sale consideration for 2K-10L land covered by dag No. 285, K.P. Patta No. 175 of Village Deurigaon, Mouza Bhairabpad, P.S. Tezpur, Dist. Sonitpur was Rs. 15.00 lakh at the rate of Rs. 6 lakh per katha and on 5/06.11.2010, the respondents paid to the petitioner an advance of Rs. 21,000. On 8.11.2010, the parties entered into an agreement for sale and a further sum of Rs. 2 lakh was to the petitioner by a cheque dated 9.11.2010, drawn on the firm of respondent No. 2. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 12.79 lakh was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was projected that on several occasions, request was made to the petitioner to accept the sale consideration, but on failure to perform their part of the contract, the respondents issued an advocate's notice dated 30.1.2012, followed by another notice dated 4.9.2012 and thereafter, the suit was filed on 15.5.2013.

4. The petitioner received the summons and did not contest the suit and, therefore, by order dated 21.9.2013, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The learned trial court framed only one issue for trial, i.e., whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

5. The PW-1 had exhibited money receipt of Rs. 21,000 (Ext. 1), bank statement of account (Ext. 2), Agreement for Sale (Ext. 3), advocate's notice dated 30.1.2012 and 4.9.2012 (Ext. 4 and Ext. 5), postal receipt [Ext. 4(1) and Ext. 5(1)], acknowledgement cards [Ext. 4(2) and Ext. 5(2)]. The learned trial court had arrived at a finding that the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and to pay the balance price of Rs. 12,79,000 but the petitioner committed breach of contract by not performing her part of the contract as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Accordingly, it was held that the respondents were entitled to the decree and the suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner was directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents by obtaining necessary permission for sale of the suit land from the concerned authorities and to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,79,000. The petitioner was also directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents at the cost of the respondents and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property by evicting the petitioner with her men and materials therefrom.

6. To enforce the decree, the respondents had filed T. Ex. No. 4/2014. On receipt of notice thereof, the petitioner had filed a petition under order IX, rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 59/2014. While by order dated 2.12.2015, T. Ex. Case No. 4/2014 was dismissed for not taking steps, the said Misc.(J) Case No. 59/2014 was also dismissed for default by order dated 8.2.2016. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed T. Ex. Case 14/2015 for execution of the said decree. The learned executing court issued a notice to the petitioner in the said execution case together with a draft sale deed, requiring the petiti