The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available to the aggrieved party, a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

ORDER :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005 in OS.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.)

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005 in OS.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The petitioner is the third party to the suit filed by the first respondent as against the respondents 2 to 6 herein for specific performance on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 29.01.1993. The respondents 2 to 6 failed to appear before the trial court and as such, they were set exparte. Hence, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005 as prayed for. The petitioner is being the third party to the suit, challenging the judgment and decree, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company doing business of promotion and development of multi storeyed building as a joint venture. The entire extent of five acres of land comprised in survey Nos.224/1, 224/2 and 225 comprised in Padi Village belongs to the second respondent herein and six other persons. The entire land has been developed by the petitioner along with one Ben Foundation. In the total extent of the land, undivided share of one acre and 30 cents belonged to the second respondent herein. The entire extent of the land admeasuring 5 acres was acquired by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. Award has been passed in award No.4 of 1981. The possession of the suit property was taken over by the Tamilnadu Housing Board on 23.01.1982. In the meanwhile, original owners of the land had entered into an agreement for sale on receipt of advance amount. On the strength of the said agreement, the first respondent herein filed suit for specific performance in OS.No.10 of 2004. No suit summons was served on the respondents 2 to 6 herein and paper publication was ordered. After effecting paper publication, they were called absent and set exparte. In pursuant to the said exparte, exparte judgment was passed by the trial court. During the year 2005, the erstwhile owners of the said lands also filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.15248 of 2005 seeking direction to reconvey the acquired lands. This Court, by order dated 29.04.2005, allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to reconvey the said property to the erstwhile land owners. It was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.No.12165 of 2007.

3.1 He further submitted that after filing contempt petition, the reconveyance was made by the Tamilnadu Housing Board to the erstwhile owners including the suit property to an extent of 1.30 acres comprised in survey No.224/1 situated at Padikuppam Village, Ambattur Taluk. Thereafter, it was sold by the third respondent in favour of one, Kumaravel. Thereafter, from the said Kumaravel, the petitioner company obtained power of attorney on 26.02.2009 and entered into agreement for development along with adjacent lands. At that juncture, the petitioner company came to know about the notice issued in execution petition in EP.No.23 of 2009 in OS.No.10 of 2004. In the execution petition, notices were issued to all the defendants in the suit. Then only, they came to understand about the exparte decree and they filed petition to set aside the exparte decree with delay of 1587 days. However, the trial court dismissed the said petition and the same was confirmed by this Court. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it was not aware of the legal proceedings since there was no encumbrance at all in respect of the suit property. It entered into a joint venture agreement with the said Kumaravel who is the purchaser of the said property from the responden