IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :23..07..2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.954 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.4810 of 2024 M.Mervin Kumar ..... Petitioner -Versus-

1.K.Paramasivam

2.E.Sadasivam 3.Canara Bank, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Bhavani Branch, Bhavani, Erode District.

..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Erode District at Bhavani, in O.S.No.5 of 2021 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.Manokaran for R2 Mr.R.Sreedhar for R3 No Appearance for R1

ORDER

Challenge has been made to the judgement and decree dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Erode District at Bhavani, whereby the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2021 was decreed in part and a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale was granted, on the ground that the said judgement and decree were obtained by fraud and collusion.

2. The revision petitioner is a third party. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2001.

3.0 The fact that are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition, in brief, are as follows:-

3.1 The above said suit was filed by K.Paramasivam, the 1st respondent herein against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for specific performance of contract of alleged agreement of sale dated 04.06.2017 directing the 1^st defendant/2^nd respondent herein to execute the sale deed for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and for a declaration declaring that the loan transaction between the defendants over the suit property is void and not binding upon the plaintiff/1^st respondent herein and for possession of the subject property and few other properties set out in the plaint schedule. The said suit suit was decreed by judgement and decree dated 24.08.2022 on merits though the 2^nd defendant bank remained ex parte. The learned Additional District Judge, however, decreed the suit only in respect of specific performance of contract and dismissed the suit in respect of the relief of declaration.

3.2 In the plaint, it was pleaded that out of total sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- for the sale of the subject property and few other properties, an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the 1^st defendant on the date of agreement itself. According to the plaintiff, though the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid within a period of four months, the 1^st defendant received a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and extended the time for further four years till 04.06.2017 and made an endorsement on the agreement itself. Further, the 1^st defendant received another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and extended the time for further three years till 04.06.2020 for the completion of the sale transaction and made an endorsement on the agreement in this regard. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and to have the contract concluded after paying the balance sale consideration, but it was the 1^st defendant who did not come forwarded to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. Hence, according to the plaintiff, under the above circumstances, he had to file the above suit.

3.3 The 1^st defendant filed written statement agreeing the averments made in the plaint. However, the 2^nd defendant bank unfortunately remained ex parte and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, heard the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and passed a decree and judgement as already stated supra against the 1^st defendant after setting the 2^nd defendant bank ex parte.

3.4 The revision petitioner who is a third party to the suit proceedings and the auction purchaser of the house site, Plot No.90, measuring an extent of 2400 square feet, comprised in R.S.Nos.43/1B, 44