A decree for specific performance encompasses a direction for delivery of possession, and the absence of a specific clause for delivery of possession is not mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

This civil miscellaneous second appeal is directed against the order confirming the judgment of the Additional district Judge, Namakkal in CMA.No.13 of 2020, the appeal against the order of the Sub-Court, Sankari made in EP.No.32 of 2009 dated 06.01.2020.

2. The proceedings arose out of a suit for specific performance laid by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, against one M/s. T.L.Manickam and N.Natarajan. The suit came to be decreed by the Sub-Court, Sankari on 27.02.2001. An appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree in AS.No.58 of 2002 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 24.03.2009. The Appellant herein, who was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased 1st defendant in the suit along with the other defendants challenged the correctness of the judgment of this Court in CA.No.4264 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal also came to be dismissed on 16.11.2016. Thereafter, the decree was put in execution.

3. Before the Executing Court, the appelalant herein, filed an application in EA.No.236 of 2017 purportedly under Order 21 Rule 58 projecting an independent claim over the property. The said execution application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 21.03.2018. An appeal in CMA.No.7 of 2018 filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 05.07.2019. Undeterred the appellant filed an appeal in CMSA.No.21 of 2020 in this Court and the same was dismissed on 25.08.2020.

4. The Appellant objected to the execution of the decree before the Executing Court on three grounds. The first ground is that the draft sale deed was not filed along with the Execution Petition. The second one is that the decree does not contain a clause for delivery of possession and therefore, the petitioners / decree holders cannot seek delivery of possession and the third ground is that due to considerable passage of time, the value of the property had increased and therefore, in equity, the decree cannot be executed. The Executing Court rejected all the three contentions and directed the decree holders to file a draft sale deed by its order dated 06.01.2020.

5. The petitioners preferred a civil revision petition against the said order in CRP.Sr.No.44438 of 2020. This Court, by order dated 14.07.2020 concluded that an appeal would lie against the order of the Executing Court under Order 43 Rule 1(1) of C.P.C. Upon such conclusion, this Court directed the appellant to file an appeal. This Court also favoured the petitioner with an order of interim stay for a peirod of six weeks to enable to the petitioner to move the Appellate Court, considering the lockdown imposed due to the Pandemic. The petitioner preferred an appeal in CMA.No.13 of 2020. The Additional District Judge, Namakkal, who heard the appeal rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.02.2021. Aggrieved, the Appellant has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

7. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would vehemently contend that the Executing Court erred in entertaining the Execution Petition without a copy of the draft sale deed being produced. In an Execution under Order 21 Rule 34, where a decree directing execution of a document is sought to be executed, the decree holder can seek execution and the production of a draft sale deed or a draft of the document that is directed to be executed is not mandatory. After hearing the judgment debtor, it is always open to the Executing Court to direct the decree holder to file a draft document and thereafter, approve the same for execution. I therefore, do not think there is no substance in the first objection. I am supported in this view of mine by the judgment of this Court in Shanmugam Vs. Arthanari reported in 2010 (2) MWN (Civil) 701.

8. The second objection that is raised is that the decree does no