O R D E R

The Civil Revision is directed against the order returning the plaint, dated 12.06.2021 and seeking orders directing the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to take the plaint on file.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement and alternatively for refund of the advance amount with interest and costs.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to the defendant, that the defendant in order to meet out her daughter's marriage expenses offered to sell the suit property and the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same, that both the parties had fixed the sale price at Rs.3,00,000/- and the plaintiff has paid Rs.50,000/- on 15.10.2016, that subsequently, the plaintiff has paid further advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.12.2016, that both of them have entered into a sale receipt on 13.12.2016, evidencing the transaction already had and the terms of the sale. The plaintiff's further case is that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and get the sale deed executed, that since the defendant has been postponing the sale on some pretext or other, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a lawyer notice, dated 04.01.2020 directing the defendant to receive the balance sale price and to execute the sale deed, that the defendant has sent a reply with false and untenable allegations and that since the defendant has not chosen to comply with the same, the plaintiff was forced to file the above suit for specific performance of sale agreement and alternatively for refund of the advance amount. The learned Subordinate Judge vide order, dated 11.02.2020 has returned the plaint, directing the plaintiff “to explain the plaint Document No.I is a sale agreement and receipt.” It is evident from the records that the plaintiff has represented the plaint by giving an explanation that as per the receipt Ex.A1, the plaint Document No.I is to be considered as a sale agreement, that the learned Subordinate Judge has again returned the plaint raising a query, whether the said receipt can be treated as sale agreement, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(4) LW 186 and that the plaintiff has again represented the plaint by endorsing “As per Section 2(e) of Contract Act, 1872, Every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration for each other is an agreement, considering this Ex.A1 is to be considered as an agreement.” It is further evident that the learned Subordinate Judge has returned the plaint again stating that the previous return was not clarified and that the Document No.I is not a registered sale agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff has again represented the plaint with the following endorsement:

“The judgment reported in 200(4) LW, page 188 is not applicable to the present case, since the above cited judgment discussed about Section.68 of Evidence Act, as that an agreement must have two parties and both are to sign the same, only then it is an agreement. Further, in the above cited judgment, the disputed sale agreement (Ex.A1) not signed by the defendant and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that “the document enforceable in law”.

But the present plaint, the plaintiff produced a document headed as “Sale receipt” signed by both the parties to the document and witness also and therefore, that document produced fulfilled the requirement U/s. 68 of Evident Act and further, the plaintiff is ready to prove the nature of document as “Sale Agreement” during the course of trial. Hence, represented with complying the directions.”

4. Thereafter, the learned Subordinate Judge has passed the impugned order of return, dated 12.06.2021 raising the following queries:

“jpUg;ggg; LfpwJ

1. ,gg; puhJld; jhf;fy; nra;Js;s 1tJ Mtzk;

xU urPJ MFk; mJ fpiua xg;ge;jky;y.

”

2. urPJ Vw;gg; l;l fhyj;jpypUe;J 3 tUlfhyk;

14.10.2019 Tld; Kbe;J tpl;lJ NkYk; tof;fwpQh; mwptpg;Gk; %d;W tUl fhyk; Kbj;j gpd;Ng gpujpthjpf;F fl