Ex parte decrees must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper notice to defendants; failure to do so invalidates the decree.

ORDER :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The present civil revision petition is filed by the defendant in the suit, appellant in the unnumbered Appeal Suit, petitioner in I.A.No.1780 of 2021 in Unnumbered A.S.No. of 2021 on the file of Principal District Court, Madurai against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.12.2022.

2.The plaintiff in the suit in the 1^st respondent herein and the defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendant as per the ranking in the suit. The 2^nd respondent is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property who had purchased the suit property after the disposal of I.A.No.113 of 2020 and prior to disposal of E.A.No.1 of 2019. Hence this Court impleaded the 2^nd respondent as necessary party in the Civil Revision Petition proceedings.

3.The suit in O.S.No.556 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff / 1^st respondent inter alia praying for specific performance to execute a sale deed after receiving the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- and if the defendant fails to execute sale deed, the Court may execute a sale deed to the plaintiff and to grant the costs of the suit.

4.(i)The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff and the defendant had executed registered sale agreement dated 05.08.2011 by fixing the sale consideration as Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs), the advance amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- paid and the plaintiff is liable to pay the balance of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three years. If the balance amount is paid within three years, the defendant shall receive it without any opposition. If the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the defendant is liable for all loss incurred by the plaintiff. The suit O.S.No.556 of 2014 was allowed by granting “exparte decree” in favour of the plaintiff vide judgement and decree dated 17.10.2014.

4. (ii) Thereafter the plaintiff had preferred E.P.No.58 of 2015 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.556 of 2014 along with E.A.No.29 of 2015 inter alia praying to take possession from the defendant and hand over possession to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, notice in E.P.No.58 of 2015 was issued to the defendant, but the defendant failed to appear, hence the Court had executed the sale deed dated 08.07.2015. But according to the defendant no notice was issued in O.S.No.556 of 2014 and no notice was issued in E.P.No.58 of 2015. However, when summon dated 16.02.2016 was issued in E.A.29 of 2015 for taking possession of the property, then only it came to the knowledge of the defendant that the suit had been filed and the same was decreed, sale deed was executed by the Court. Hence the defendant had filed,

i. E.A.No.9 of 2016 was filed which was dismissed for default by the defendant counsel on 11.11.2016.

ii. Again the defendant filed E.A.No.9 of 2017, which was dismissed on 17.09.2021

iii. On the other hand defendant also filed I.A.No.232 of 2016 to condone the delay in restoring the suit and the same was dismissed for default on 11.11.2016.

iv. Again the defendant had filed unnumbered I.A.No. of 2017 to condone the delay of 55 days in restoring the I.A.No.232 of2016

v. The unnumbered I.A. was numbered in the year 2020 in I.A.No.113 of 2020 to condone the delay of 1153 days in filing the set aside petition inter alia praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.232 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on11.12.2020

vi. Again the defendant had filed E.A.No.