The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party approaching the court must do so with clean hands and must not engage in forum shopping. Additionally, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court must be in conformity with Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.22 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge at Mayiladuthurai, remand the suit in O.S.No.22 of 1999 with a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 1999 dated 18.06.2003 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby, decreeing the suit for specific performance.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit property, on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 23.07.1998. The petitioner engaged his counsel before the trial Court and he reported no instructions before the trial Court. Therefore, the suit was set ex-parte by the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the counsel appeared on behalf of the party reported no instructions before the Court below, the Court below should have issued notice to the parties concerned and the Court below without even issuing any notice, the petitioner was set ex-parte and passed the judgment and decree against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that though the petitioner was set ex- parte, the Court below passed the judgment, without following the procedures contemplated under Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court below, without even any discussion over the issues framed by the trial Court, simply recorded as if P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked and decreed the suit.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was originally set ex-parte on 24.06.2000 and thereafter, on his application to set aside the ex-parte decree, it was set aside and again he was set ex-parte on 25.06.2002. Once again, the petitioner filed a petition to set side the ex-parte and the same was allowed and he was permitted to contest the suit. Thereafter, once again, he was set ex-parte and the judgment was passed by the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. On the strength of the decree, dated 18.06.2003, the respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.62 of 2004 in which also the petitioner was set ex-parte and the sale deed was executed on 22.05.2005 and the same was registered as document No.287 of 2005. After execution of the sale deed, the respondent filed the Execution Petition for delivery of possession in E.P.No.55 of 2006. In fact, in the Execution Petition, the petitioner was duly served with the notice and he also filed a petition in E.A.No.70 of 2011 for summoning the original documents. The same was dismissed by an order dated 27.08.2012. In fact, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2014 to nullify the decree dated 18.06.2003 passed in the present suit. The same was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016. Therefore, after exhausting all remedies before the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner as against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003.

5. He further submitted that even before filing the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner's son filed a suit for partition in respect of the very same property in O.S.No.191 of 2005 in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as first defendant and the respondent as fifth defendant. The suit was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2008. Again, the petitioner has set-up his daughter and filed another suit for partition in O.S.No.31 of 2007. Though the same was dismissed for default and after restoring the said suit, it was dismissed on merits by the judgment