1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 04 .07.2023

Delivered on : 08.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN

THILAKAVADI

C.R.P(MD)No.1013 of 2022

and

C.M.P(MD)No.4042 of 2022

P.Maniraj

... Petitioner/Respondent/

Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Suresh Kannan

... Respondent/Petitioner/

Proposed Respondent/Proposed

Respondent

2.A.Johny Ford

3.D.Mahendra Kmar

4.E.Esakki Raja

... Respondent/Respondent/

Respondent/Defendants

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure

Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.12.2021 passed in

E.A.No.2 of 2019 in E.P.No.42 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 by the

Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

For Petitioners

:Mr.K.Jeyamohan

For R1

:Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram

for Mr.G.Mohankumar

For R2

:No appearance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order

dated 03.12.2021 passed in E.A.No.2 of 2019 in E.P.No.42 of 2017 in

O.S.No.12 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition,

are as follows:-

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 and the

respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants. There was a sale agreement dated

08.02.2012 entered between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 agreed

to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and the petitioner paid a

sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents 2 to 4 as advance by cheque and

he was always ready to pay the balance amount. However, the respondents 2

to 4 did not come forward to register the sale deed and hence, the petitioner

was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance against the

respondents 2 to 4 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 before the Principal District Court,

Thoothukudi. Subsequently, the case was referred to Lok Adalat and there

was a settlement between the parties and an award was passed on

12.11.2016 recording the terms of settlement. In accordance with the terms

of settlement, the second respondent ought to have paid a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of one year and the first installment of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in the month of January 2017 to the petitioner. It

was also recorded that any delay in payment, would carry 6% interest. It is

further stated that the respondents 2 to 4 did not come forward to pay the

amount as per the Lok Adalat award. Hence, he preferred an execution

petition in E.P.No.42 of 2017 before the Principal District Court,

Thoothukudi, for attachment and sale of the suit property by Court auction.

On 24.07.2019 the suit property was brought for auction with an upset price

of Rs.11,50,000/-. Since there was no bidder in the said auction, the auction

again was again conducted on 06.11.2019, in which, the first respondent

was the highest bidder in the said auction for a sum of Rs.10,31,000/- and

he immediately deposited a sum of Rs.2,57,750/- being 25% of the value of

the sale. It is further stated that he was hoping that the first respondent will

pay the remaining 75% amount within the time stipulated.

3.To his shock and surprise, the first respondent instead of paying the

remaining amount, he filed an application in E.A.No.2 of 2019, to set aside

the Court auction conducted on 06.11.2019 and to return the ¼ the sale

consideration along with poundage amount of Rs.2,57,750/-. In the said

application, the first respondent stated that on seeing Dinamalar Newspaper

advertisement, dated 06.11.2019, he came to know that the Indian Overseas

Bank, Main Branch, Thoothukudi, has a charge over the suit schedule

properties through registered mortgage deed, dated 27.03.2012. In the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

petition, it is further alleged that the aforesaid details were not mentioned in

the sale p