Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

K. Palanisamy vs N. Jeyaraj(Dead) Through Lrs. on 9 April, 2024

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

     ITEM NO.36                               COURT NO.10                    SECTION XII

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F          I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     CONMT.PET.(C) No. 964/2023 in C.A. No. 4767/2022

     K. PALANISAMY                                                           Petitioner(s)

                                                     VERSUS

     N. JEYARAJ(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.                                           Respondent(s)

     (IA No. 80036/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE)

     Date : 09-04-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE

     For Petitioner(s)
                                       Ms. Ranu Purohit, AOR
                                       Ms. R Shase, Adv.
                                       Mr. Yashas Rk, Adv.
                                       Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)
                                       Mr. R. Vishnu Kumar, Adv.
                                       Mr. R. Ilam Paridi, AOR
                                       Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.

                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                  O R D E R

Respondents’ application seeking exemption from personal appearance is dismissed.

This Court, on 15.07.2022, has passed the following order:

The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court 10:38:11 IST Reason: against the impugned order passed by the High Court on 22.06.2021 setting aside the ex­parte Judgment 1 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 964/2023 in C.A. No. 4767/2022 after delay of 1490 days.

The plaintiff­appellant filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an Agreement dated 26.08.2011. The defendant filed his written statement, but did not contest the suit thereafter. An ex­parte decree was thus passed on 10.09.2014. The decree­ holder filed an Execution Petition on 29.12.2014. The Judgment­Debtor entered appearance through his advocate on 27.04.2015, but did not contest the Execution Petition as well.

It was on 17.03.2017, the Executing Court executed and registered the Sale Deed in favour of the present appellant. It was in December, 2017, the decree­holder filed an application for directing the Judgment­Debtor to hand over the vacant possession of the property. The summon was received by the wife of the Judgment­Debtor on 29.10.2018.

Thereafter, the defendant filed an application for setting aside the ex­parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay of 1490 days. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court has allowed the same. Still aggrieved,the plaintiff has come up before this Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the defendants has given an undertaking that he will vacate the property in question within six weeks and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff­decree­holder, subject to the liberty to the defendants to contest the suit on merits.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we allow the defendants to contest the suit,subject to his handing over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within six weeks.

The validity of the Sale Deed will be subject to the final decision of the suit proceedings. Since the proceedings have been delayed on the instance of the defendants, we hope that the trial court will be able to decide the suit on merits within one year.

In view of above, the civil appeal is disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.” 2 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 964/2023 in C.A. No. 4767/2022 While accepting the defendants’ undertaking, the Court had directed the defendants to vacate the property in question (subject matter of the instant lis) within a period of six weeks.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents­defendants states that symbolic possession has been handed over, which statement, stands refuted by the petitioner­plaintiff.

As such, we direct the parties, that is, the plaintiff and the defendants to remain present on the spot on 22 nd April, 2024, when the defendants shall hand over the physical possession of the premises to the plaintiff, if already not so done.

In view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner­plaintiff, the possession has not yet been handed over; the defendants­ respondents shall personally remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

Re­list the matter on 30th April, 2024.

            (NIDHI AHUJA)                       (POOJA SHARMA)
              AR-cum-PS                       COURT MASTER (NSH)




                                                                              3