ORDER :

(The matter is heard through “Video-conferencing”)

1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2010 made in E.P.No.21 of 2007 in O.S.No.514 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry.

2. The petitioner is the legal representative of judgment debtor in O.S.No.514 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry and 3rd respondent in E.P.No.21 of 2007. The 1st respondent, who is the decree holder/petitioner in E.P. filed the said suit against one Pauline Bombo, the 1st defendant and 2nd respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed only against Pauline Bombo, the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of 1st respondent on depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- into the Court within four months from the date of decree, execute the sale deed as per Ex.A2 in respect of the suit property, the 2nd respondent is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.15,000/- deposited into the Court and the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- from the 1st defendant with interest and setting aside the sale deed dated 20.01.1986 as null and void. Against the judgment passed in the suit, the First Appeal in A.S.No.133 of 1990 was filed by the defendants and the same was allowed. The 1st respondent filed Second Appeal No.1450 of 1993 and the same was allowed confirming the decree of the trial Court by the judgment dated 14.06.2006. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.21 of 2007 against the defendants for a direction to them to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property and in default, the Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent. Even after entering appearance, the 1st defendant/1st respondent in E.P. was set exparte on 04.04.2008. The 1st defendant/1st respondent in E.P. filed an application in E.A.No.Nil of 2008 under Section XXI Rule 106 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to set aside the exparte order dated 04.04.2008 made in E.P.No.21 of 2007 passed against her. The 1st defendant also filed counter statement in the E.P. along with said E.A. According to the 1st defendant/1st respondent in E.P., when E.P. was posted for filing counter statement by the 1st respondent in E.P., she did not file counter statement as one Antionette Beaumont/third party, the petitioner herein filed application under Section 151 of C.P.C. to stay all further proceedings of E.P.No.21 of 2007. The 1st defendant stated that she was aged 82 years, she could not come out from her house due to her old age from January 2008 onwards, exparte order was passed on 04.04.2008 and prayed for setting aside the exparte order.

2(i). Pending E.P., the 1st defendant Pauline Bombo, who is 1st respondent in E.P. died. The petitioner, legal representative of the 1st defendant was brought on record as 3rd respondent in the E.P.

3.The learned Judge on 30.09.2010 passed the following order: “Sale deed executed. Sale deed handed over to the petitioner. E.P. is terminated.”

4.Against the said fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2010 made in E.P.No.21 of 2007 in O.S.No.514 of 1985, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the application filed by the 1st defendant/1st respondent in E.P. on 10.04.2008 was not numbered and taken up for hearing. It was kept unnumbered for more than two years. Without considering the said application and without giving an opportunity to the 1st respondent in E.P., the learned Judge executed the sale deed and terminated the E.P. The learned Judge did not comply with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C. for execution of the sale deed, erroneously executed sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein, terminated E.P. and prayed to set aside the order in E.P. and for allowing the C.R.P.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that in spite of opportunity given to the 1st defendant, she did