M.V.MURALIDARAN - (1.) The revision petitioner are the defendants in O.S.No.129 of 2004 (renumbered from O.S.No.363 of 2001) on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and in the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein sought for specific performance of sale agreement, permanent injunction, etc. declaration, permanent injunction, etc. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by passing an exparte judgment, against which the defendants have filed an appeal before this Court, which is in SR stage. Subsequently, when the execution proceedings were about to start, a third party, claiming to have rights over the property, filed a Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD) No.588 of 2018, which was, after argument, reserved for orders and therefore, the third party filed a memo before the Trial Court for stoppage of delivery order citing the pendency of CRP. However, the Trial Court was pleased to reject the memo pursuant to non grant of any stay in the CRP. Challenging the same, the defendants/petitioners herein are before this Court.
(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner/defendants that they are the legal heirs of the original defendants, who had expired and the suit schedule property is in possession of the defendants and the plaintiff cannot claim right over the property. There was no sale agreement between them and no possession was ever given to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief. It is the further case of the petitioners that having not proved the factum of the petitioners' intention to sell the property, the Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement based on the fabricated documents. The plaintiff has converted the contract of money transaction into the one of specific performance in order to grab the suit property.
(3.) The revision petitioners state that subsequent to the filing of E.P.No.34 of 2008 by the plaintiff for execution of the order, one third party had filed E.A.No.34 of 2017 to stop all execution proceedings, which was dismissed for default, against which he filed another application in E.A.No.75 of 2017 for restoration of E.A.34 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed on 22.02.2018 with costs. The revision petitioners further state that pursuant thereto, the third party petitioner filed C.R.P.(MD) No.588 of 2018 before this Court for setting aside the order passed in E.A.No.75 of 2017, which, after hearing both sides, was reserved for orders. Therefore, the revision petitioners filed a memo before the Trial Court to postpone the execution proceedings till the order being passed in the CRP, which was not considered by the Trial Court and the said act is against law and calls for interference by this Court.;