The compliance with procedural requirements, validity of power of attorney and life certificate, and confirmation of plaintiff's identity during video conferencing were crucial in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 read with Section 104 (1)(i) of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decree dated 22.04.2022 made in CMA No.1 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee confirming the Docket Order dated 10.11.2021 made in E.P.No.57 of 2010 in O.S.No.393 of 1989 on the file of Sub-ordinate Judge, Poonamalee.)

1. Judgment Debtor/Defendant, is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in Original Suit.

3. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the order passed in CMA No.1 of 2022, confirming the order passed in EP No.57 of 2016, wherein the Execution Court/ learned Sub Ordinate Judge, Poonamallee has accepted the draft sale deed produced by the Decree holder/Plaintiff. Against the said order, the Judgment Debtor/Defendant has not preferred an appeal. However, on the memo filed as an objection for the draft sale deed vide docket order dated 10.11.2021, the life certificate filed by the Decree holder/Plaintiff/respondent was taken into consideration and objection regarding the power of attorney of the Decree holder/Plaintiff/respondent, filed by way of objection was rejected and as against the docket order on the memo/objection, he has preferred this appeal.

4. The short facts that are necessary for determination of the CMSA, are as follows:

(i) The case of the Plaintiff/respondent is that he filed suit for specific performance directing the Defendant/appellant, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff-Daniel Sam and the suit was decreed in his favour and confirmed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.93 of 2004 and confirmed in second appeal S.A.No.441 of 2007 and confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s) 15815/2015 but the Defendant/appellant failed to execute the sale deed, hence seeks to execute the decree by directing the Defendant/appellant to execute the sale deed failing which seeks this Court to execute the sale deed in his favour.

(ii) The first objection by the Defendant/appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent-Daniel Sam is involved in Crime No.1267/1988 and is absconding for the past 25 years and his whereabouts are not known, therefore the EP is not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that the certified copy of FIR involved in the crime number referred by the plaintiff/respondent has been filed as Document Ex.B2 in the suit itself and only after perusal of all documents suit has been decreed, hence the defendant/appellant''s objection that the plaintiff/respondent is involved in the Crime No.1267/1988 cannot be a ground to reject the plaintiff''s claim to execute the sale deed.

(iii) (a) On the above stated situation, the defendant/appellant filed the objection stating that in the said execution petition, he filed an objection for taking a draft sale deed filed by the Plaintiff/respondent for the execution of the sale deed through Court. In the said objection, he has questioned the validity of the power of attorney and questioned the life certificate. (b) The same was rejected by a docket order dated 10.11.2021. Aggrieved against the docket entry dated 10.11.2021, he has preferred the above CMA No.1 of 2022 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

(c) The Plaintiff/respondent filed memo before the trial Court on 08.10.2021 in compliance with Order 21 Rule 34(2) of CPC. The Defendant/appellant raised objection pertaining to power of attorney before the execution court. Initially he also raised the very same plea before the trial Court while the trial of the suit. The trial Court recorded the finding that the objection pertaining to power of attorney, has been considered by the trial Court, appellate Court in the First as