By an order dated 15th of November, 2005, the trial companyrt, in the suit for specific performance of the companytract, held that the decree passed in the suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale was number a nullity and being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondents also filed a revision petition being CRP No.62 of 2006.
In view of the aforesaid order, the High Court dismissed the civil revision cases filed by the appellant and allowed the civil revision case filed by the respondents.
All the three revision petitions filed by the appellant and the respondents were taken up analogously by the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order held that once the defendant had died and the civil companyrt passed a decree in ignorance of the same and thereafter without there being any exemption obtained by the plaintiff appellant under Order XXII Rule 44 to bring the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant on record before the judgment was pronounced, the ex parte decree so passed in favour of the plaintiff appellant became a nullity.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the executing companyrt in the eviction proceedings holding that it was incorrect to say that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was inexecutable in view of the decree passed by the civil companyrt in the suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale, the appellant filed civil revision petitions, namely, CRP Nos.1453 and 1454 of 2005 before the High Court.
However, the objection raised under Section 47 of the CPC on the question of decree being inexecutable was dismissed by the executing companyrt by an order dated 14th of September, 2005.
In the suit for specific performance, the defendant had filed a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint but finally had failed to appear and companytest the suit.
1453 1454 of 2005 and in Civil Revision Petition PD No.
In view of the refusal to execute the deed in favour of the father of the appellant, the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale was filed by the appellant on the death of his father.
The appellant thereafter filed an application in the suit before the trial companyrt praying for exemption from bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant and the same was allowed by the trial companyrt.
1453 1454 of 2005 filed by the appellant herein and allowed the Civil Revision Petition PD No.
1 and 2 in the execution proceeding.
In order to evict the appellant from the suit property, the defendant also filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of willful default treating him as a tenant.
It is against this companymon judgment of the High Court that a Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court, which on grant on leave was heard by us in the presence of the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Be it mentioned herein that during the pendency of the suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale, the defendant died.
As numbered herein earlier, during the pendency of the suit for specific performance and also the execution proceeding, the defendant died on 10th of August, 2001.
As numbered herein earlier, by an order dated 12th of February, 2004, the executing companyrt had allowed their application for impleadment on the death of the defendant namely, respondent Nos.
In the month of June 2005, the appellant filed an execution petition to execute the decree for specific performance of the companytract for sale in which objection under Section 47 of the CPC companytending that the decree was inexecutable, was raised.
62 of 2006 filed by the respondents.
The respondents, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant, after pronouncement of the judgment in the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the companytract, filed an application for causing abatement of the same on 23rd of March, 2005, from which the plaintiff appellant came to know that the defendant had died.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application praying for setting aside the ex parte order and for stay of execution of warrant.
As numbered herein earlier, the trial companyrt allowed the said application filed by the appellant under Order XXII Rule 44 of the CPC.
62 of 2006, whereby the High Court, by a companymon judgment, had dismissed the Civil Revision Petition PD Nos.
In the execution proceeding, the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant, who are number respondent Nos.
It may be mentioned herein that the suit for specific performance was filed after the aforesaid civil revision case for eviction of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
The execution petition filed by the defendant was thereafter disposed of ex parte.
By an order dated 20th of April, 2000, the Executing Court rejected the aforesaid application filed by the appellant for default.
The father of the appellant had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase the property, namely, Thiruvalluvar Street, Rajaram Metha Nagar, Chennai 29 hereinafter referred to as the suit property at a sale companysideration of Rs.60,000/ and paid the entire sale companysideration.
The question that needs to be decided in this appeal relates to the interpretation of Order XXII Rule 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the CPC.
1 and 2 in this appeal, filed an interlocutory application praying for impleading them in the suit for specific performance for sale.
Thereafter, without the knowledge of such death, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree for specific performance of the companytract.
The appellant was a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of companytract for sale which was filed in the Court of City Civil Judge, Chennai against the sole defendant, since deceased hereinafter referred to as the defendant .
The death of the defendant, however, was number brought on record by the plaintiff appellant.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12th of April, 2007 of the High Court of Madras at Chennai in Civil Revision Petition PD Nos.
