IMPORTANT POINT
Decree can be rescinded only on specified grounds.

K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.— This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in E.A.No.251 of 2009 in E.P.No.2 of 2004 in O.S.No.166 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court No.1, Cuddalore allowing the application filed by the respondents hereinunder Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. The petitioner herein as the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Court Cuddalore for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondents herein as defendants. The said suit, after contest, came to be decreed on 29.6.2004, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000 and in default for execution of such sale deed by the Court. Three months time had been granted to the defendants for executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Consequent upon such judgment and decree, the petitioner filed execution petition in E.P.No.2 of 2005 as the defendants/respondents failed to execute the sale deed within the time stipulated by the trial court after receiving the balance sale consideration from the petitioner.

3. In the above E.P. the respondents herein filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act praying for closure of the suit by holding that the suit agreement and decree stand rescinded by contending that a settlement was arrived between the parties and accordingly, the respondents have repaid the amount received from the petitioner with interest and the petitioner herein received the said money and executed a document dated 4.8.2008 thereby cancelling the suit agreement. Therefore, in view of the cancellation of the suit agreement by the petitioner/plaintiff, the decree passed by the court below should be cancelled as it got rescinded. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner had executed a separate discharge receipt.

4. The petitioner herein as the respondent in the said application filed counter-affidavit and contested the same. It is her contention that after the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondents did not execute the sale deed and as such the petitioner deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000 in court and filed the execution petition. It is also denied by the petitioner that the respondents herein repaid the amount received as advance with interest and that the petitioner herein had executed a document cancelling the suit agreement. The alleged cancellation deed dated 4.8.2008 is not a true, valid and admissible document in evidence. The petitioner further stated that she did not receive any amount nor issued any receipt nor executed any cancellation deed as alleged by the respondents. It is her categorical case that the so-called cancellation deed and receipt are forged documents, concocted by the respondents. It is further stated that the sale agreement is a registered one, which cannot be cancelled by an unregistered document.

5. The petitioner further stated that as against the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal before the Principal District Court, Cuddalore with a petition to condone the delay and with a petition to permit them to sue as indigent persons. The said petition in I.A.No.81 of 2005 seeking permission to file the appeal as indigent persons was contested by the petitioner and the same was dismissed on 6.1.2006 thereby directing the respondents to pay the court fee within two months. As the respondents did not pay the court fee, the appeal was dismissed consequently.

6. The court below after considering the rival pleadings of the parties and their submissions, allowed the application filed by the respondents and ordered that the suit agreement and the decree passed in the said suit stood cancelled and consequently the execution petition as closed. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

7. Mrs. Chitra Sampath, the learned Senior Counsel