ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 147 of 2012, a suit for specific performance, whose application for condonation of delay of 651 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial Court is on revision.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C.T. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondents/plaintiff.

3. The suit was laid by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15.10.2009. According to the plaintiff the 1st defendant namely the owner of the property had agreed to sell the property to her for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- and has received an advance of Rs. 95,000/- on the date of agreement. The balance of sale consideration is payable within six months from the date of the agreement. Claiming that despite demands, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed and the 1st defendant has sold the property to the 2nd defendant on 15.02.2010, disregarding the agreement, the plaintiff has sued for specific performance.

4. The defendants remained ex parte and an ex parte decree came to be passed in the suit on 03.12.2013. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant (Subsequent purchaser) alone came up with the application to set aside the ex parte decree. There was a delay of 651 days in setting aside the expare decree. The reasons for the delay were that upon receipt of the notice, she had required the 1st defendant about the details of the suit and the 1st defendant had informed her that it is only loan transaction and she would satisfy the debt and get the suit withdrawn and the 2nd defendant need not be worried by the suit.

5. It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that she believed the 1st defendant and had not chosen to prosecute the suit. It is also claimed that the entire transaction is a loan transaction and there is substantial delay in filing the suit. The said request for condonation of delay was resisted by the plaintiff contending that there was no proper explanation for the delay. The suit has been decreed as early as on 03.12.2013 and the 2nd defendant who is a subsequent purchaser and not a party to the agreement has no locus standi to seek to set aside the ex parte decree.

6. The trial Court upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, agreed with the second contention and concluded that the 2nd defendant did not have locus standi to have the ex parte decree set aside and dismissed the application.

7. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party to the suit for specific performance. He would also draw my attention to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lala Durga Prasad and another Vs. Lala Deep Chand and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 75 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved that the correct form of a decree in a suit for specific performance is the one that would require the subsequent purchaser also to join the execution of the Sale Deed.

8. According to Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party to the suit for specific performance and without he being made a party to the Sale Deed to be executed by the Court valid title will not pass on to the plaintiff. Therefore, according to Mr. R. Thiagarajan, the reasoning of the trial Court for dismissing the application cannot be sustained.

9. Mr. C.T. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while conceding that the subsequent purchaser is a necessary party to the suit, would contend that the delay has not been properly explained. All that the 2nd defendant has said that as a reason for enormous delay of 651 days is that she believed the 1st defendant. This reason according to Mr. C.T. Mohan, is wholly insufficient for condoning a long delay of 651 days. Mr. C.