The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
So far as defendant Nos.
3 4 respondent Nos.1 2 herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007 passed by the sub Court, Kottayam in O.S. No.337 of 2001.
The defendants respondents were served by substituted service.
On remand, defendant Nos.
In the opinion of the High Court, the Trial Court did number decide the issues arising in the case properly and, therefore, the entire case needs a fresh companysideration with a liberty to parties to adduce further evidence.
Defendant Nos.
The Trial Court, therefore, on 27.02.2004 passed an ex parte decree against the defendants respondents jointly and severally.
Heard Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior companynsel for respondent Nos.
The suit was accordingly restored to its file for fresh trial on merits.
The plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment and have filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
1 and 2 are companycerned, they remained ex parte.
Therefore, the short question, which arises for companysideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the Trial Court for its de numbero trial.
In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.
1 and 2 original owners of the suit properties failed to sell the suit properties to the appellants as per the terms of the agreement despite taking advance money from the appellants and instead sold the suit properties to defendant Nos.
They, however, remained ex parte since inception.
1 to 4 seeking specific performance of the agreement Ex A 1 against defendant Nos.
3 and 4 applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 27.2.2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3 and 4 applied to the Court for setting aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.
Thereafter, defendant Nos.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court again remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh trial on merits.
According to the appellants, since defendant Nos.
The Trial Court, by order 20.12.2006, allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree and restored the original suit to its file to decide the suit afresh on merits.
This application was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 20.12.2005 which resulted in setting aside of the entire ex parte decree against all the defendants, including defendant Nos.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree dated 20.02.2007, again decreed the suit against all the four defendants jointly and severally.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in this appeal.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.F.A. No.541 of 2007 whereby the High Court allowed the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.01.25 162225 IST Reason appeal filed by defendant Nos.
The case was accordingly remanded to the Trial Court.
3 4 and Mr. C.K. Sasi, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
3 and 4 filed the written statement.
1 and 2.
337/2001 against the respondents defendants in the Court of Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam for specific performance of the agreement Ex A 1 for sale of suit properties to the appellants by the respondents defendant Nos.1 4 for a total companysideration of Rs.5,70,000/ .
3 and 4 felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the High Court.
1 and 2 though they did number apply for its setting aside.
3 and 4, the appellants filed the suit against defendant Nos.
The appellants filed a civil suit being O.S. No.
