As the respondents did number companye forward to get the sale deed registered, the appellant No.
Amendment as sought for was allowed vide order dated 13.12.1978.
526 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore is cancelled and such a re registration will have to abide by the order that may be passed by the District Munsif in I.A. No.
526 of 1987.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
1019 of 1987 the appellants filed CRP No.
Respondents filed Review Petition No.
Passing of a decree for specific performance would cause great prejudice to the appellants and that the respondents were number entitled to the relief for specific performance.
The said order companyld number be re opened at the instance of the respondents by merely filing an application i.e. I.A. No.
2695 and 2696 of 1993 arising from an order dated 2.7.1993 passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore in I.A. No.
Respondents paid a sum of Rs.
The petitioner may take resort to some legal remedy as may be available to him.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
187 of 1980 by the District Munsif, Coimbatore.
526 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, companysequent to the return dated 28.11.1980 in O.S. No.
Respondents, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, filed two separate CRPs.
2,15,710/ , plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation in the companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction within a period of two months.
It was pleaded that a simple suit for permanent injunction was number maintainable in the absence of a prayer seeking specific performance of the agreement.
187 of 1980 by the Munsif Court had become final and binding between the parties with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this Court on 11.5.1988.
187 of 1980.
526 of 1987 to treat the suit as a fresh suit.
1168 of 1989 stated that the application was an abuse of the process of the Court and amounted to circumventing and flouting the orders of the High Court.
It was observed that the re registration of the suit shall have to abide by the order that shall be passed in I.A. No.
2769 of 1988 in the High Court and the same was dismissed.
Plaint claim Rs.
2,15,710/ pecuniary jurisdiction.
187 of 1980 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants from causing any obstruction or interference or prejudice to the plaintiffs respondents by undertaking any companystruction activities on the suit land or by giving any access to the land or companynecting the land with public road etc.
187 of 1980 will stand remitted back to the learned Trial Judge, i.e., District Munsif Coimbatore, for disposal in accordance with law after giving numberice to the opposite parties in that applicationthe registering of the suit as O.S. No.
1019 of 1987 before the Munsif Court with a prayer that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff.
Aggrieved against the order dated 28.4.1987 in A. No.
It was held that the Munsif Court having ordered return of the plaint on 28.11.1980, it was number open to it to pass another order of return of plaint after a lapse of 7 years.
53,000/ per acre.
It was further held that the appellants, in the meanwhile, had sold a part of the property to third parties who were put in possession.
The order reads A.No.
Appellants in their reply to I.A. No.
This had become final between the parties.
By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the revision petition and remitted I.A. No.
Because of the changed circumstances the relief of specific performance companyld number be granted.
187 of 1980 both on merits as well as being violative of principles of natural justice.
High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Munsif Court in I.A. No.
Respondents filed I.A. No.
Time two month.
We have heard companynsel for the parties at length.
3226 of 1987 dated 6.11.1987.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
The Principal Sub Judge Transferee Court disposed of A. No.
Respondents filed OS No.
2,15,710/ re presented the plaint before the Vacation Civil Judge, Coimbatore and it was registered as O.S. No.
1168 of 1989.
3226 of 1987 was incorrect inasmuch as the only order that companyld have been passed in CRP No.
It was held that the suit for specific performance companyld be filed within a period of three years and even assuming that the suit in O.S. No.
On 27.4.1987 respondents filed I.A. No.
1919 of 1987 in the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore with a prayer to return the plaint.
2100 of 1987 filed by the appellants and A. No.
Appellants in their written statement raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
Aggrieved against the order of the High Court, the respondents filed SLP C No.
The learned Single Judge has proceeded in the matter as if it was hearing an appeal against the earlier order passed by the Single Judge in CRP No.
In view of the objections raised by the appellants, respondents filed I.A. No.
187 of 1980, there was numberfresh cause of action for the present suit and the suit was barred by limitation.
1982 of 1980 to amend the plaint and seek specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.12.1978.
The High Court gave the above direction on the following premises that Order dated 6.11.1987 passed by the High Court in CRP No.
The High Court in its previous order had held that the prices had gone up a few times over the original price.
Registration of Suit No.
3786 of 1988 which was dismissed on 11.5.1988 with the following observations Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
1168 of 1989 in O.S. No.
On the very next day, i.e., 28.4.1987 the Principal District Munsif without giving any numberice to the appellants passed the following order plaint may be returned to the advocate as requested.
2100 of 1987 in O.S. No.
3226 of 1987 the appellants filed I.A. No.
Respondents by their default and long lapse of time had allowed third party rights to set in respect of the suit properties rendering the passing of the decree of specific performance inequitable and unjust.
276 of 1988 filed by the respondents seeking review of the order dated 6.11.1987 was dismissed on 29.4.1998.
Further the High Court by the impugned order remitted the case back to the District Munsif, Coimbatore which did number have the jurisdiction to pass any order in the suit because of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
He companyld number set aside the earlier order.1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
By the impugned order, the Single Judge has virtually reviewed the earlier order passed by the High Court which it companyld number do.
Respondents kept quite for seven years.
2100 of 1987 filed by the appellants and dismissed I.A. No.
526 of 1987 was companysidered as a separate suit and number a companytinuation of O.S. No.
As the Munsif Court did number have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit of the value of Rs.
One week time for re presentation given.
Hence plaint returned for presentation to proper companyrt.
2 by his letter dated 10.6.1979 informed the respondents that they have lost their right to get the sale deed executed under the agreement of sale.
Prayer was in the following terms For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue necessary orders for effecting delivery of the amended plaint in O.S. No.
It was also pleaded that the respondents had abandoned their right under the agreement and the relief of specific performance was barred by limitation.
The defendants appellants hereinafter referred to as the appellants who were the owners of suit property measuring 4 acres 7 cents in Kurinchi Village, Coimbatore entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs respondents hereinafter referred to as the respondents to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs.
1168 of 1989 was number maintainable in view of the order passed by the High Court in I.A. No.
Third party rights had also companye into existence.
Notice terminating the agreement was also sent to the respondent through a lawyer on 12.9.1979.
526 of 1987 as a fresh suit.
Respondents after paying the companyrt fee on Rs.
3226 of 1987 and, therefore, the same be dismissed as such.
After seven long years, respondents chose to file I.A. No.
2100 of 1987 and I.A. No.
The High Court has set aside the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge and remitted the case to the Munsif Court for a fresh decision in the light of the observations and directions given in the impugned order.
10,001/ as earnest money and the balance sale companysideration was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed which was to be companypleted within four months.
numbering 2695 and 2696 of 1993 against the order passed by the subordinate companyrt in A. No.
526 of 1987.
3226 of 1987 or as if it was sitting in review jurisdiction.
3226 of 1987 was to remit A. No.
2,15,710/ at the rate of Rs.
1019 of 1987 in CRP No.
The respondents did number companyply with the said order.
Accordingly, the Principal Sub Judge allowed I.A. No.
Further it was held that the Munsif Court was number entitled to entertain and pass any order on the application petition without giving a prior numberice to the other side.
187 of 1980 to the Munsif Court for a fresh decision in the light of the observations and directions given in the impugned order.
1168 of 1989 filed by the respondents.
The order passed by the Munsif Court on this application on 28.4.1987 granting a weeks time to re present the plaint was held to be without jurisdiction by the High Court.
The facts are companyplicated and required to be set out in detail to appreciate the companytroversy arising in these proceedings.
526 of 1987 in the subordinate companyrt was cancelled.
526 of 1987.
2100 of 1987 in O.S. No.
The grant of specific relief is a discretionary relief and is number as a matter of right.
The present attempt of the respondents was an attempt in the nature of a second review of the order dated 6.11.1987 which companyld number be permitted.
The plaint had already been returned by the District Munsif to the petitioner for re presentation to a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction which the respondent did after paying the requisite companyrt fee and the subordinate companyrt having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction had already assigned a new number to the suit i.e. O.S. No.
It was observed that the order passed by the Munsif Court had caused great prejudice to the appellants and the respondents were number entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Review Petition No.
The impugned order cannot be sustained because that the earlier order dated 6.11.1987 passed by the High Court setting aside the order dated 28.4.1987 passed in I.A. No.
1168 of 1989 filed by the respondents by passing a companymon order and held that I.A. No.
1982 of 1980 allowed.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
187 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Coimbatore, is cancelled and such re registration will have to abide by the order that will be passed in I.A. No.
BHAN, J. These appeals are directed against the companymon order dated 24.3.1998 passed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in CRP No.
187 of 1980 and I.A. No.
Another fact which needs to be highlighted is that after the order passed by the High Court in CRP No.
1019 of 1987 in O.S. No.
It was held A. No.
3226 of 1987 in the High Court of Madras.
187 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore.
The learned Judge who passed the impugned order was number sitting in appeal over the earlier order passed by the High Court.
The learned Single Judge has gone beyond the relief claimed in the IAs in ordering that the registration of the suit as O.S. No.
1168 of 1989 and that too with a prayer to treat O.S. No.
