The court can remand a case to the trial court for de novo consideration if evidence is uncontroverted, ensuring justice is served.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, with an alternate relief for return of the advance sale consideration, was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are in appeal.

2. On 16.02.2010 Ext.A1 agreement for sale was executed between the plaintiffs and defendants. The extent of property involved is 1 acre and 51.5 cents. From out of the said extent, 10 cents belongs to one Vijayalakshmi, who is not a party to the suit. She has also not signed Ext.A1 agreement. The remaining extent belongs to defendants 1 and 2. As per Ext.A1 agreement the property was agreed to be conveyed for a total consideration of ₹ 41,20,000/-. The period fixed for performance was up to 16.05.2010. On the date of Ext.A1 an amount of ₹ 26 lakhs was R.F.A. No.157 of 2018 paid towards advance sale consideration. Subsequently, on various occasions, the period of performance was extended and there were payments of further advances towards balance sale consideration. The entire sale consideration payable was paid by 07.04.2016. The payments and the extensions were endorsed on the reverse side of Ext.A1 agreement. On getting information that the defendants have entered into an agreement with a third party, the suit has been filed.

3. The defendants remained ex parte.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have not proved their readiness and willingness to perform the agreement.

5. We have heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri.K.B.Ganesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. In support of the plaintiffs claim they had filed proof affidavit and also produced Ext.A1, the sale agreement, and Ext.A2, the encumbrance certificate relating to the property. The recitals in Ext.A1 and the entries on the reverse side of Ext.A1 prima facie indicates the part payments of sale consideration on R.F.A. No.157 of 2018 various occasions. According to the plaintiffs, the said payments together make up the total sale consideration. The plaintiffs have alleged that they were ready and willing to perform the agreement and that the endorsement on the reverse side of Ext.A1 indicates that the extension of period was mutually agreed upon.

7. The defendants had remained ex parte. They had not filed any written statement controverting the plaintiffs case. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

8. Apparently we find that based on the uncontroverted evidence on record, the trial court could not have dismissed the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the reliefs sought in the suit, we are of the opinion that an opportunity can be granted to the defendants to contest the suit on merits and enable the parties to invite a decree on merits. This will meet the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court will stand set aside. The suit is remanded back to the trial court for disposal denovo. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 10.02.2026. The defendants R.F.A. No.157 of 2018 shall file written statement on or before 30.03.2026. We are sure that the trial court will expedite the disposal of the suit. Both sides will be given opportunity to adduce evidence.

The entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellants.

Sd/-