IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.6.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.1533 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 N.Ramasamy .... Petitioner vs. 1.K.P.Vwenkatachalapathi 2.Deivathal ... Respondents This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 25.11.2009 passed in E.A.No.112 of 2009 in E.P.No.40 of 2007 in O.S.No.162 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun For Respondents: Mr.R.T.Doraisamy ORDER
Inveighing the order dated 25.11.2009 passed in E.A.No.112 of 2009 in E.P.No.40 of 2007 in O.S.No.162 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. The warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:-
The first respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.162 of 2004 and obtained a decree for specific performance as against the second respondent/defendant. During the pendency of the said suit itself, the plaintiff obtained injunction as against the defendant, so as to restrain her from alienating the subject matter of the suit property. It so happened that the defendant, in violation of the said order of injunction, sold the property in favour of the revision petitioner herein, who is none but the father-in-law of the defendant. Ultimately, the Court decreed the suit. The plaintiff filed the E.P.No.40 of 2007 as against the defendant/judgement debtor as well as the revision petitioner herein, seeking the following relief:
“to declare that the sale deed dated 17.6.2005 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant during the pendency of the injunction order dated 9.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.422 of 2004, is null and void.”
Whereupon the revision petitioner herein, after entering appearance, filed the E.A.No.112 of 2009 seeking stay of the E.P.No.40 of 2007. Whereupon, after hearing both sides the lower Court dismissed the said application, as against which the present revision has been filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Indubitably and unarguably the fact remains that the trial Court granted injunction as against the defendant, so as to restrain her from alienating the subject matter of the suit property. It appears the defendant alienated the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner herein. It is trite that generally a purchaser of the property, pendente lite, and that too, in violation of the injunction order cannot assert any right in respect of the suit property and he cannot also seek for staying the E.P., which had been filed mainly for the purpose of punishing him for contempt. While holding so, I would like to point out that the revision petitioner could be mulcted with liability for contempt if at all there is evidence to show that with the knowledge of the injunction order he purchased the property.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would submit that in an E.P there is no legal possibility of the Court making any declaration about the validity or otherwise of any sale deed. I would like to agree with the said submission. But incidentally the Court has to give a finding about the validity or otherwise of the said sale executed by the original defendant in favour of the revision petitioner. However, the original plaintiff/decree holder, in the E.P. could have restrained from seeking such a specific prayer for declaration.
6. With the above observation I would like to dismiss the civil revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
7. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is one other suit pending at the instance of the revision petitioner herein based on some alleged prior agreement to sell etc. Irrespective of the dismissal of this civil revision petition, the Court which is seized of the said suit shall deal with the matter in accordance with law and this order will not be a bar for the said one other suit pending at the instance of the revision petitioner.
Msk 07.06.2010 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. G.RAJASURIA,J. msk C.R.P.(NPD).No.1533 of 2010 07.06.2010