The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the abuse of process of law and the Court by the Petitioners, along with the consideration of the admission of receiving part of the sale consideration and the subsequent execution of the Sale Deed through the Court.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decretal Order, dated 2.3.2011 made in I.A. No. 398 of 2010 in I.A. No. 861 of 2009 in O.S. No. 22 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur.

2. It is seen that the Suit was filed by the Respondent herein, seeking Specific Performance of the contract, based on an alleged Agreement, dated 25.8.2006. In support of his contention, the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the alleged Sale Agreement, dated 25.8.2006 and a copy of the legal notice, dated 18.12.2006 with acknowledgement. The Defendants were called absent and set ex parte. Hence, the Suit was decreed for Specific Performance of contract, by the Court below on 6.2.2008 in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff, on payment of balance of consideration, as per the alleged Agreement.

3. The Petitioners/Defendants had filed Petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 6.2.2008, however, the Application was dismissed for default. Then the Petitioners/Defendants filed I.A. No. 861 of 2009, to restore the said Interlocutory Application filed in I.A. No. 214 of 2009, that was dismissed for default on 17.9.2009. The Petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9, r/w Section 151, C.P.C. was also dismissed for default on 15.7.2000. Aggrieved by which, the Petitioners herein filed an unnumbered Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 398 of 2010, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the said Petition, the same was also dismissed on 2.3.2011. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is seen that the Suit was filed by the Respondent herein, seeking Specific Performance of the contract. The Respondent, as Plaintiff has averred in the Plaint that the Revision Petitioners/Defendants had entered into an Agreement with the Respondent/Plaintiff, to execute Sale Deed in respect of the Plaint schedule of properties for sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 30,34,000/- and received an advance of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the date of the Agreement, however, in spite of the legal notice, they failed to execute Sale Deed, hence, he filed the Suit against the Petitioners/Defendants, seeking Specific Performance of the contract.

5. In the Written Statement filed by the First Petitioner (D1) adopted by the other Petitioners (D2 & D3), they have stated in Paragraph Number 5 as follows:

“5. This Defendant submits the earlier Agreement holder came and obtained the registered Sale Deed in his favour and she confirmed his possession and the sale transaction was over. This Defendant states the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid to her by Plaintiff has been deposited into Bank safely, and she has no objection to repay the same, with interest at 12% p.a., to the Plaintiff.”

6. As per the averments of the Written Statement filed by the Petitioners, the Petitioners had already sold the property to some other person and ready to return the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with 12% interest p.a., to the Plaintiff. However, the alleged subsequent purchaser has not been impleaded in the Suit. In the Written Statement filed by the Petitioners herein, they have not stated anything about the date of the earlier Sale Agreement between the Petitioners and the alleged third party. The Petitioners have also not stated anything about the name, address and other details of the earlier Agreement holder and also the details about the Sale Deed executed by the Petitioners. Though the Petitioners have disputed the alleged Sale Agreement between the Petitioners and the Respondent/Plaintiff, they have stated that the amount Rs. 10 lakhs would be returned with interest at 12% p.a to the Respondent/Plaintiff, which is a self-contradictory version available in the Written Statement, since in the absence of Agreement for Sale, they need not repay the amount Rs. 10 lakhs with in