JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 17.06.2017 passed in I.A.No.395 of 2016 in I.A.No.392 of 2014 in O.S.No.210 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Harur.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Fair and Decreetal order passed by the District Munsiff Court, Harur in I.A.No.395 of 2016 in I.A.No.392 of 2014 in O.S.No.210 of 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent as plaintiff instituted the Suit O.S.No.210 of 2011, for specific performance. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant purchased the suit schedule properties from one Lakshminathan, vide sale deed dated 29.04.1993 and from Arimuthu and Chinnapalani, vide sale deed dated 03.05.1993, thereby he became absolute owner of suit schedule properties and on 11.07.1994, the defendant entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.87,000/- and on that day itself, the entire amount was paid by the plaintiff and the possession was also handed over to him. It is further stated that the plaintiff had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- to improve the land as such he has been enjoying the properties. He was always ready and willing to get sale deed executed in his favour, but the defendant was postponing execution of sale deed on one reason or other. While so, the defendant demanded a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for executing the sale deed. Hence, he issued a legal notice, but the defendant evaded the notice.

3. The petitioner/defendant though entered appearance through his lawyer, however, he was set exparte on 27.06.2013 for non filing the written statement. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1024 of 2013 to set aside the exparte order. The said petition was dismissed for default on 09.01.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 8 documents. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30.01.2014.

4. In pursuance of the decree of specific performance, the plaintiff filed the Execution Petition No.4 of 2015 for execution of the sale deed, and even in the said proceedings also, the defendant remained exparte. Eventually, the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 09.08.2016.

5. Thereafter, the defendant has filed two applications I.A.No.392 of 2014 to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the application and I.A.No.393 of 2014 to set aside the exparte Decree. I.A.No.392 of 2014 also came to be dismissed for default for non filing of batta on 01.07.2016. Consequently, I.A.No.393 of 2014 was also dismissed on 17.06.2017.

6. I.A.No.395 of 2016 was filed to restore the application I.A.No.392 of 2014. It is his case that the interim application was posted on 01.07.2016 for filing batta, but on that day, the advocates boycotted the Court and he was also suffering from ailment, due to which, he could not file a Memo, hence, it was dismissed for default. The learned District Munsiff Court, Harur, dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the present revision has been filed.

7. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the sale agreement is a forged document. That apart, the suit was filed after lapse of 17 years, while Article 54 of the Limitation Act prescribes three years time to institute the suit. This aspect was not at all considered and the Judgment and Decree is not in confirmity with Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of C.P.C. in as much as no finding has been given with regard to readiness and willingness as required under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. He further added that in the year 2010 the property was settled by the defendant in favour his sons, who in turn executed a Power of Attorney and the property was sold by the Power Agent to one Shankar. He sold the property to one Geetha. The subsequent purchaser Geetha had also filed the suit O.S.No.49 of 2