The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Specific Relief Act, particularly Section 20 and Section 16(c), in determining the genuineness of a sale agreement and the readiness and willingness of the parties.

1. This review petition is filed by the respondent in A.S.No.493 of 2008, who lost the legal battle, both in the trial Court and in the first Appellate Court.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement executed by the review petitioner. Since the review petitioner has not performed his contract, the respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.428 of 2004, before Principal District Court, Chengalpet, which was renumbered as O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. After contesting, the suit for decree of specific performance has been passed and the review petitioner herein was directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein for a total consideration of Rs.14,85,000/- within three months from the date of decree and also directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property, against which, the defendant as an appellant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.493 of 2008 and the same has been dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower Court, against which, the Review Petition is filed by the appellant.

3. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of record which vitiates the conclusion reached by this Court in A.S.No.493 of 2008. Ex.A1/Sale agreement is a concocted document and after obtaining signatures only, the document was created and concocted by the respondent herein with a view to foist a false, frivolous, vexatious case against the appellant/review petitioner. He further stated that respondent herein in collusion and connivance with one A.Rangasamy/P.W.2, the third attesting witness, manufactured and concocted the said document. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of record which calls for review of the decision. He further stated that as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court should exercise its discretion on sound and reasonable manner and as such the discretion which has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely is subject to correction of a Court of appeal as could be seen from Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, reveals that readiness and willingness is not a mere empty formality to the plaintiff should aver and proof readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. He further submitted that the signatures of the review petitioner, her husband and daughter are concocted and forged for this purpose. Hence, he prayed for review the decision of this Court passed in A.S.No.493 of 2008. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision reported in 2012 3 CTC 59 (Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka and others) and submitted that this Court has power to review the order.

4. Mr.J.Alexander, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the review petitioner trying to drag on the proceedings has filed this review not to execute the sale deed. At the time of argument in appeal, no defence raised that the signature has been obtained on blank paper and subsequently, it was concocted. It is further submitted that the review petitioner herself admitted that the signature in Ex.A1/sale agreement is belonging to her and that factum has been considered by both the Courts below. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of record. All the points now raised have been raised at the time of appeal itself and after considering both sides argument, this Court rendered the Judgment. Hence, there is no need to review the decision of this Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the review petition.

5. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides.

6. Now this Court has to consider Order 47 of Civil Procedure Code, which is read as follows:

ORDER XLVII- REVIEW

1. Application for review of judgment— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

a