ORDER:

“Procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to retard it. The difficulty of the decree-holder starts in getting possession in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. The judgment- debtor tries to thwart the execution by all possible objections.” (Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others)1.

“Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take.”

(M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram2.

“The rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice.” (Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union of India3 . 2. This revision petition is filed against order, dated 24.10.2019, in I.A.No.27 of 2015 (old I.A.No.1139 of 2010) in O.S.No.46 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pondur.

3. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, leaned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st defendant and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the

1 AIR 1982 SC 818 2 (1978) 2 SCC 91

3 (2005) 6 SCC 344

1st respondent/plaintiff. The 2nd respondent is shown to be not a necessary party to this revision petition.

4. The revision petitioner is the 1st respondent in I.A.No.27 of 2015 and the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in I.A.No.27 of 2015 and the plaintiff in the suit. The 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd respondent in the said petition and 2nd defendant in the suit. The 2nd respondent is shown as not a necessary party to this revision petition.

5. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 2001 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 17.12.1998, executed by the 1st defendant and for delivery of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29.06.2007 against the 1st defendant. No relief against the 2nd defendant was either sought or was granted. I.A.No.1139 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff under Section 28 (3) (sic-c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short, ‘the Act’) to direct the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed and if he fails to do so, Court may register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and deliver the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The 1st respondent/1st defendant was set ex parte on 14.10.2011. Later, the petition was transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rajam to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pondur, and the petition was renumbered as I.A.No.27 of 2015. Then, the 1st respondent filed petition in I.A.No.70 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 14.10.2011. The petition was dismissed on 03.06.2016. The 1st respondent carried the matter in revision to the High Court in C.R.P.No.3397 of 2016. The High Court disposed of the revision petition on 15.07.2016 observing that the trial Court dismissed the petition only on the ground that the matter was already disposed of, whereas the docket order produced before the High Court shows that the petition was pending as on 03.06.2016, and therefore, the impugned order was set aside by remanding the petition to the trial Court with a direction to consider the grounds and pass appropriate orders afresh. Meanwhile, the trial Court executed a sale deed on 14.06.2016. However, in view of the direction by the High Court, I.A.No.70 of 2016 was heard afresh and the petition was allowed on 17.07.2018. Thereby, counter of the 1st respondent in I.A.No.27 of 2015 was received on file. The 1st respondent opposed the petition mainly on the grounds that the petition under section 28(3) of the Act is not maintainable to direct this respondent to execute a sale deed, but the petitioner has to take appropriate proceedings under Order XXI CPC a