ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in suit for specific performance in O.S. No.75 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruppur. The revision petitioner challenges the exparte decree passed in the said suit on 26.09.2013, invoking the extraordinary revisional powers available in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja. learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Nishanth, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. The first respondent in the revision is no more and his heirs have already been impleaded, pending the revision.

3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting my attention to the judgment passed in O.S. No.75 of 2013 would submit that the Trial Court has not followed the mandate of the Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short 'CPC') and moreso, the suit being one for specific performance, the Trial Court ought to have given findings with regard to readiness and willingness before granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel Mr.N.Manoharan, would therefore state that the said judgment and decree is no judgment in the eye of law and nothing but a nullity, which can certainly be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel has also fairly brought to my notice that though an Application was filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in setting aside the exparte decree (delay of 945 days) and the said Application was dismissed and the said order was also confirmed by the Court in CRP.(NPD). No.4259 of 2019, by order dated 29.06.2021. It is the contention of the Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel that when the Trial Court has passed a non-est judgment, which has no validity in the eye of law, the earlier attempt to set aside the decree will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the exparte decree directly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Limtied, reported in 2011 (3) CTC 168;

(ii) Chitrakala Vs. P.Mahesh and others, reported in 2013 (4) CTC 545;

(iii) K.Balakrishnan Vs. S.Dhanasekar, reported in (2017) SCC online Mad 30659;

(iv) Ramachandran and Ors Vs. Balakrishnan and Ors, reported in MANU/TN/4930/2020;

(v) Shanthimalai Trust Represented by its Managing Trustee Vs. Arunachala Education and Environment Development Trust (AEED Trust) rep by its Managing Trustee and others, reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 4781; and

(vi) Brahmand Farm Lands Limited, Rep. By its Director, V.K.Somakakumar Vs. K.Venkatesan, reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 1078.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 would contend that the issue of challenging a non speaking judgment by way of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra, in view of the decisions of this Court in R.Rasappan Vs. D.Rajalakshmi, reported in 2025 (4) CTC 337, and P.Sureshkumar Vs. M.Dhandapani and others, in CRP. Nos.3801 of 2025 dated 07.11.2025. Though the learned Judge, who had passed the order in Rasappan's case had earlier taken a view that Article 227 can be invoked to challenge a judgment passed without following the mandate of Order XX Rule 4 CPC, subsequently, revisiting the earlier view taken by himself, the learned Judge held in Rasappan's case, that the fact that the judgment is improper on account of being a non- speaking judgment cannot be a ground to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the exparte judgment and decree. The said view was quoted with approval by me in P.Sureshkumar's case (referr