ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2022 The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.711 of 2009 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit is filed praying for a decree of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 02.03.2009, whereunder the second respondent, agreed to sell plaint schedule property having an extent of 3.555 cents, comprised in Sy.No.176/6A and 6B of Edappally South Village, to the petitioner for Rs.7,00,000/-. It was averred in the plaint that, out of the sale price of Rs.7,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on the date of agreement. The petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and demanded execution of the sale deed, but the second respondent did not accede to the demand. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.11.2011.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application for getting the property executed in his name through court. The application was allowed and the property was registered in the petitioner's name vide document No.1679 of 2016 of SRO, Kochi. Thereupon, the petitioner filed application for getting delivery of the property and accordingly, the property was delivered to him on 30.07.2018.

2. While so, the first respondent filed I.A.Nos.2976, 2977 and 2979 of 2018. The prayer in I.A.No.2976 of 2018 was to set aside the ex- parte decree, I.A.No. 2979 of 2018 to condone the delay of 2415 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and I.A.No. 2977 of 2018 to get impleaded in the suit as additional defendant, in his capacity as pendente lite transferee. Despite petitioner's objection, the trial court allowed the applications by a common order. CRP No.254 of 2020 is filed against the order in I.A.Nos.2976 and 2979 of 2018, O.P. (C)No.1066 of 2020, against the order in I.A.No.2977 of 2018.

3. Before considering the challenge against the impugned orders, it is apposite to consider the averments in the interlocutory applications filed by the 1st respondent, which are as under;

3.55 cents shown as the plaint schedule property, was purchased by the first respondent from the defendant (second respondent herein), as per Sale Deed No.2105 of 2009 dated 24.04.2009 of SRO, Edappally. Even before execution of the sale deed, the vendor had handed over the prior title deeds to the first respondent. After executing the sale deed, the property was mutated in the first respondent's name and assigned thanadaper account No.35574. From then onwards, the first respondent has been regularly paying basic tax for the property. Even though the first respondent hails from Eloor village, he was employed as a teacher at Malappuram till his retirement in March, 2018. The first respondent's wife is working as Manager in the State Bank of India. Hence, the first respondent and his family had to reside away from Erankulam and was not aware of the suit filed by the petitioner in collusion with the second respondent, nor of the ex-parte decree and execution of sale deed through court. After his retirement in March, 2018, the first respondent decided to construct a house in the 3.55 cents belonging to him. For that purpose, he applied for encumbrance certificate from Edappally SRO. On obtaining the encumbrance certificate, the first respondent was taken aback to find the entry relating to execution of sale deed No.1679 of 2016. Immediately, he obtained certified copy of the sale deed and made enquiries through his lawyer. Thereupon, he came to know about the suit and further proceedings. In his applications, the first respondent had alleged that the petitioner and second respondent are close friends and had filed the suit collusively. They managed to obtain the ex-parte decree by the second respondent remaining absent. The petitioner is fully aware of the sale of the property to the first respondent. Being a bonafide purchaser for value, the first respondent should be permitted to contest the suit, lest his interest will be jeopardised.

4. I