The court emphasized that a petitioner must act with diligence and clean hands when invoking Article 227, especially when challenging an ex-parte decree after an unreasonable delay.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.72 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri. The suit for specific performance filed by one Sagadhevan was decreed ex-parte on 06.03.2003 and the decree holders have initiated execution proceedings in REP.No.38 of 2011. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 1994 by the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri on 06.03.2003 as being illegal.

2.I have heard Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for Mr.Gowwtham Thelak V.B, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates for the contesting respondents 2 to 5.

3.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiff, Sagadhevan had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which suit, he had specifically made an averment that he had an agreement of sale with the 1^st petitioner, Maragadham Ammal alone. There was no mention of the said Maragadham Ammal, representing her minor children and subsequently, the said suit has been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit for specific performance. However, in the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has impleaded the minors, as defendants and has sought for a decree for specific performance, in respect of even the share of the minors.

4.It is also the contention of Mr.Sharath Chandran that when the second suit was returned repeatedly by the trial Court for filing the copy of the plaint in the earlier suit for permanent injunction, to suit her convenience, the plaintiff avoided filing of the copy of the plaint and by doing so, suppressing the case on which she came to Court at the first instance, the plaintiff attempted to get a decree against two minors, whose interest was never represented by their mother, the 1^st petitioner in the suit sale agreement. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff has played fraud upon the Court and fraud vitiating all acts, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and seek for setting aside the decree passed in the suit.

5.It is the further contention of Mr.Sharath Chandran that in a suit for specific performance, the trial Court is bound to ensure that the plaintiff comes to Court with clean hands and also establishes readiness and willingness at all relevant points of time, before becoming entitled to a decree for specific performance. Inviting my attention to the judgment passed by the trial Court, he would contend that there has been no application of mind by the trial Court whatsoever and therefore, on this ground as well, the judgment and decree has to be necessarily set aside. He would also state that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that one Beeman, the 4th defendant in the suit become the owner of the property, pursuant to a compromise decree passed in an earlier civil proceedings and the trial Court, without even considering the interplay of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963, has erroneously granted the dec