ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the order dated

10.02.2017 made in I.A.No.1437 of 2012 in O.S.No.6540 of 2009 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

rd

2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the 3 defendant in the suit filed by the st respondent/plaintiff, for the relief of specific performance against the 1 nd defendant and to declare the sale deed dated 20.09.2000 executed by the 2 rd defendant in favour of the 3 defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and other consequential reliefs.

3.In the suit, the defendants were not served with proper notice, and they rd were set as exparte. To set aside the exparte decree, the 3 defendant/Revision Petitioner took steps under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, stating that notice was not properly served on her and the same was returned as no such person. Because, after the marriage, she was residing in a different address. Therefore, no notice was served neither in the suit proceedings nor in the execution proceedings. Having came to know about the suit proceedings, she filed an application in I.A.No.1437 of 2012 to condone the delay, but the same was not appreciated by the Court below and dismissed the said application stating that 3rd defendant was already aware of the proceedings. Infact, the said application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff that having known about all the proceedings, the 3rd defendant has not contested the suit.

rd

4.The Revision Petitioner/3 defendant did not raise any objection even in the execution proceedings and notice was not properly served, they remained exparte, sale deed also executed in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application filed to condone the delay of 500 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

rd

5.Challenging the order of the Trial Court, the 3 defendant/Revision Petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

rd

6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/3 defendant would submit that the petitioner has purchased the property, even before filing of the suit. The respondent/plaintiff purposefully not served summons to the defendants with proper address. The petitioner is not residing in the address, which was given in the plaint. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow this petition, to prove his defence in the suit.

7.The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that before filing the suit, he issued notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and the owner of the st property is 1 defendant alone, who gave reply and other defendants remained exparte. Suit summons were also taken to all the defendants, but they were not rd appeared inspite of notice. After execution of the sale deed, the petitioner/3 defendant purposefully filed this application, to harass the plaintiff and the same was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

8.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9.On perusal of case records, it is seen that the suit is of the year 2009. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance and declaration against the rd defendants 1 to 3. According to the 3 defendant, she was not served with notice with correct address, but the summons were returned as no such person. Based upon the exparte decree, execution petition was filed against the st

1 defendant alone and the sale deed got executed through Court of law. In that rd execution proceedings, as pointed out by the 3 defendant, she was not added as party. For that, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that as per st the decree, the 1 defendant, being the owner of the property alone was prosecuted and as against him, decree was passed. So, there is no necessity to implead other two defendants, who are not connected with the suit property. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not accept the alleged sale deed stands in the name rd rd of the 3 defendant. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the 3 defendan