ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.384 of 2016 in O.S.No.376 of 2007 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Madurantakam.

2. The Petitioner herein, who is the first Plaintiff in the suit and he was the first Respondent in I.A.No.384 of 2016 in O.S.No.376 of 2007.

3. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the suit in O.S.No.376 of 2007 was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants viz., Marimuthu Gounder and his son Arivarasan for the relief of specific performance. As per the plaint averments, the sale agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff in O.S.No.376 of 2007 and the Defendants in O.S.No.376 of 2007. On the date of the agreement, the sale agreement amount was agreed for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Rs.50,000/- was paid to the Defendants, who are father and son viz., Marimuthu Gounder and Arivarasan. In the said agreement, it was stated that the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- will be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed by the Defendants 1 & 2. After payment of Rs.50,000/- the Defendants 1 & 2, did not come forward to execute the sale deed inspite of repeated request by the Plaintiff.

4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.376 of 2007, that time is the essence of any contract, particularly, in the specific performance contract involving immovable property. The Plaintiff was always ready and the Defendants 1 & 2 were not ready. Therefore, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract. In the suit, the Defendants 1 & 2 entered appearance by engaging Counsel and filed written statement disputing the contention in the plaint. Therefore, the Learned District Munsif, Maduranthagam had framed issues and trial commenced. During the trial, the Plaintiff deposed evidence and marked documents. However, the Defendants 1 & 2, who are father and son, did not appear. Therefore, the Defendants were set exparte and the suit was decreed exparte on 03.06.2010.

5. The suit was filed in the year 2007 and the date of filing of the suit is on 15.11.2007. The Defendants executed the sale agreement on 21.11.2005 and exparte decree was passed on 03.06.2010. Subsequently, the first Respondent herein, who is the third party to the suit proceedings, filed a petition to condone the delay of 1893 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

6. It is the contention of the Petitioner in I.A.No.384 of 2016, who is the third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.376 of 2007, that he was not aware of the filing of O.S.No.376 of 2007 and passing of exparte decree. It is the contention of the Petitioner in I.A.No.384 of 2016 that the Plaintiff's father Thulukkanam had preferred a Police complaint before Orathy Police on

15.08.2015 and based on the Police complaint, the Petitioner, who is the third party, was summoned by the Orathy Police. Only during enquiry by the Police, he came to know about filing of the suit by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.376 of 2007 for specific performance of the contract and exparte decree passed on

03.06.2010.

7. It is the contention of the Petitioner in I.A.No.384 of 2016, who is the third party to the suit, that he had purchased the property from one Krishnan, who had purchased the same from the defendants in O.S.No.376 of 2007. The said Krishnan transferred the patta in his favour in patta No.476 and he was in possession and enjoyment. The said Krishnan, who sold the property to him on 20.01.2012, was not at all a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.376 of 2007. Though the suit decreed exparte on 03.06.2010, only on 16.08.2015, the Petitioner in I.A.No.384 of 2016, who is the third party to the proceedings, in O.S.No.376 of 2007 came to know about the exparte decree.

8. It is th