ORDER :

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin dated 18.09.2009.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi in O.S.No.87 of 2009.

2. The petitioner is the third party and he has filed this Civil Revision petition challenging the judgment, after seeking the leave of this Court and this Court had granted leave by an order dated 26.06.2012, made in M.P.No.1 of 2012.

3. It is seen from the records that the first respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the second respondent/ defendant. A careful reading of the plaint shows that the suit for specific performance was filed in the year 2009 based on the alleged agreement of sale dated 27.06.1986. In other words, a sale agreement is sought to be acted upon after nearly 23 years by filing the present suit. The plaint does not any where give any details as to how the plaintiff is justifying this enormous delay. A notice was served on the second respondent/ defendant and he comes before the Court and files a memo on 18.09.2019, submitting himself to the decree.

4. It is seen that the property has already been dealt with by the defendant with various third parties and concealing the same, he has proceeded to submit himself to the decree in the suit filed by the first respondent/ plaintiff.

5. It is even more shocking to see the judgment passed by the Court below. The Court below has allowed the suit without assigning any reason and it is seen that not even the agreement of sale has been marked, before the judgment and decree was passed. This judgment and decree is now been put to challenge before this Court.

6. The impleading petitions have been filed by nearly six companies on the ground that they are also the owners of several portions of the property that was sold out to them by the co-sharers of the second defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property was sold to the petitioner by the second respondent/ defendant on 18.11.2008. After having sold the property in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had lost his right over the property and he did not have any right to go and concead or submit himself for any decree before the Court below. The learned counsel submitted that the parties have played a fraud in this case and the fraud vitiates the entire judgment and decree, which has to be necessarily set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Mohammed Mamu Naina vs. Selvin and others made in C.R.P.(MD) No.1863 of 2002, dated 12.04.2007.

(ii) J. Sivasubramanian and another vs. N. Govindarajan and another reported in 1998 (1) CTC 470; and

(iii) P. Subramani vs. A. Periyasamy reported in 2013 (6) CTC 166; and

(iv) G. Selvam vs. Kasthuri (deceased) in C.R.P.(MD) No. 2984 of 2013(PD) reported in 2015 (4) CTC 673;

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/ plaintiff submitted that since the defendant did not execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, a suit for specific performance was filed and the defendant submitted himself to the decree and therefore, this 1st respondent/ plaintiff cannot be found fault and insofar as he is concerned, he has only exercised a right that was available to him under law.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents submitted that the so-called judgment and decree is not in line with Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC and such a cryptic judgment is ex facie illegal and requires the interference of this Court.

11. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side and the materials available on record.

12. The first respondent/ plaintiff has filed the suit fo