M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Though the Civil Revision Petition has taken up for admission today (24.02.2017), both the petitioner as well as the respondents are agreed for final disposal and put-forth their arguments and hence I heard the arguments of both sides and final orders has been passed.

2. The judgment debtor in E.A.No. 103 of 2013 in E.P.No. 46 of 2013 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in E.A.No.103 of 2013 in E.P.No.60 of 2009, dated 02.12.2016.

3. The case of the respondent/decree holder is that he has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale relating to the schedule item of the property and direct the respondent/defendant to come forward and execute the sale by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.47,200/- as per the agreement dated 15.04.1984, failing which the Court may be pleased to execute the sale deed and for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the decree holder/plaintiff is that the suit schedule of property in O.S.No. 362 of 1984 was owned by the petitioner/defendant, she has agreed to sell the property in favour of the decree holder/plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.64,000/- and to that effect, the sale agreement was executed on 15.04.1984, on the same date, an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid. The decree holder/plaintiff also states that on two occasions a sum of Rs.6,800/- executing two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent/defendant has received the amount. The defendant also agreed that she would get permission from the urban ceiling authority for selling the property in favour of the decree holder/plaintiff and the defendant also agreed to produce the Nil-Encumbrance Certificate and also antecedent title deeds. On 14.06.1984 the decree holder/plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant to sell the property after getting permission from the competent authority, on that notice on 18.06.1984, the defendant also replied that she has no intention to sell the schedule item of the property as per the agreement in favour of the decree holder/plaintiff. Therefore, he approached the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry and filed the suit in O.S.No. 362 of 1984 for the above prayer.

5. On receipt of the summon, the judgment debtor/defendant denying the execution of the sale agreement. On full fledged trial, the plaintiff shall not be entitled for specific performance of the agreement for sale of plaint property, but entitled to nominal damages of Rs.5,000/- as per agreement without interest. That the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.16,800/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the trial Court also declined the suit in respect of permanent injunction. Challenging the said decree, the judgment debtor/plaintiff has approached this Court and filed an appeal in A.S.No. 123 of 1986 and the said appeal was allowed and decree was granted as prayed for in O.S.No.3 62 of 1984 and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the said balance amount of sale consideration on or before 31.01.2002 to the credit of O.S.No. 362 of 1984 and then get the sale deed executed in a manner known to law. Against the said decree passed in A.S.No. 123 of 1986, no appeal was preferred by the petitioner/defendant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said suit is ended in finality.

6. Pursuant to the decree, the judgment debtor/plaintiff has filed E.P.No. 105 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry and on 24.04.2007, the Executing Court also executed a sale deed in favour of the judgment debtor/decree holder.

7. After executing the sale deed, the decree holder/plaintiff has filed another Execution Petition in E.P.No. 60 of 2009 before the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry with a prayer directing the respondent to put the decree holders in possession and in default of which, the Court may be pleased to order for delivery of possession to the decree holders under Order 21, Rule