The court emphasized a lenient approach to granting delay in setting aside ex-parte decrees, underscoring natural justice principles when the Defendants were unable to appear due to bereavement.

ORDER :

R. Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated July 14, 2022 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam in I.A.No.242 of 2021 in I.A.No.440 of 2017 in O.S.No.253 of 2015, the Respondent therein who is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit has preferred the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.1167 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Similarly, feeling aggrieved by the Order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam in E.P.No.51 of 2017 in O.S.No.253 of 2015, the Respondents therein who are the Defendants in the Original Suit have preferred the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.3282 of 2024 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Since both the Revision Petitions have the same Original Suit at their core, since the issues involved in both the Revision Petitions are intertwined, they both shall be disposed by this Common Order.

4. To maintain clarity, the parties shall be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

5. The Plaintiff filed the Suit against the Defendants seeking the relief of specific performance based on registered Sale Agreement dated June 26, 2014. According to the Plaintiff, the Suit Properties originally belonged to Govindarasu @ Govindasamy, who passed away leaving behind the Defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs / legal representatives. The Defendants 1 to 3 and the Plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement dated June 26, 2014 and the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/-. On the date of execution of Sale Agreement itself, viz., June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Defendants as advance. One year time period was fixed for performance of contract. The Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. However, the Defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Therefore, on June 10, 2015 the Plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon the Defendants to execute the Sale Deed as per the Sale Agreement. Though the Defendants received the said notice on June 13, 2015 itself, they did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as per the Sale Agreement. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit in the month of August 2015.

6. Despite summons, the Defendants did not appear before the Trial Court and hence, the Defendants were called absent and set ex-parte and eventually ex-parte decree was passed on January 8, 2016.

7. Based on the ex-parte decree, the Plaintiff filed an Execution Petition seeking to execute the Sale Deed. Despite receiving notice, the Defendants did not appear before the Executing Court. Therefore, after following due process, the Executing Court executed the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff.

8. Based on the Sale Deed, the Plaintiff filed an Execution Petition for delivery of possession. The Executing Court, after hearing both sides, directed the Defendants to deliver possession of the Suit Property to the Plaintiff vide its Order dated June 27, 2024 passed in E.P.No.51 of 2017 . Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the Defendants have preferred the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No.3282 of 2024.

9. In the meanwhile, the Defendants 1 to 3 filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.440 of 2017 in O.S.No.253 of 2015 praying to condone the delay of 551 days in filing Application to set aside the ex-parte decree. During pendency of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.440 of 2017, the third Defendant viz., Chitra passed away intestate on January 29, 2