4. Taking me through the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the judgment is a non speaking judgment and moreso, when the suit is for specific performance, the Trial Court is bound to give findings regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, entitling him to decree for specific performance. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though execution petition was filed and sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent/decree holder, it has been contended by the revision petitioner that the property being an ancestral property, the petitioner had no right to even execute the agreement of sale in the first place and falling back on the original plea taken in defence, the learned counsel submit that there was no intention to convey the property but the agreement was only executed as security for repayment of a loan availed of by the petitioner from the defendant.

5. The learned counsel would further state that the respondent/decree holder did not even pay the admitted balance sale consideration till the disposal of the suit. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the Executing Court has rendered a finding that the application under Order XXI, Rule 101 CPC is not maintainable and no evidence has been adduced in support of the challenge under the said Rule. She would however state that mere quoting of wrong provision of law cannot be put against the revision petitioner and the Executing Court ought to have decided the Application, notwithstanding the mis-quoting of provision of law. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the revision being allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court.

6. Per contra, Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would submit that the suit for specific performance was decreed on 30.03.1999 and after entering appearance in the Execution Petition which was filed to get a sale deed in favour of the decree holder, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.644 of 2000 under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the exparte decree. However, the said application came to be dismissed on 30.08.2000. He would further submit that in the meantime, the sale deed has been executed and registered in favour of the respondents on 27.06.2002. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the children of the judgment debtor filed an application in E.A. No.331 of 2008 invoking Section 47 of the CPC; the said application was dismissed after contest on 03.07.2012 and the same was challenged in appeal A.S. No.88 of 2012 which was dismissed for non prosecution on 09.07.2013. He would also invite my attention to the order passed by this Court in CRP. No.1260 of 2014, in and where, by order dated 04.07.2019, the revision was disposed with a direction to the Executing Court to decide E.A. No.331 of 2008, the said E.A. was dismissed once again on 07.03.2020 and challenging the same CRP. No.1381 of 2020 was filed before this Court and the same was also dismissed on 22.12.2023.

7. The learned counsel would further state that even the prayer that has been sought for in the petition under Order XXI, Rule 101 CPC is vague and the petitioner does not even set out on what ground the decree is alleged to be nullity. The learned counsel would also bring to my notice that though the petitioner has enclosed as many as 14 documents along with the application under Order XXI, Rule 101 CPC, the petitioner has not chosen to enter the witness box and exhibit any of these documents. The learned counsel would therefore pray that there is absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court warranting interference in revision.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. The petition admittedly filed by the revision petitioner before Executing Court is invoking Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, which reads