Under these Revisions the orders passed in EA.Nos.7 to 14 of 2008 in EP.Nos.21 to 28 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.355, 352, 353, 354, 356, 382, 383, 384 of 2007, respectively, on the file of the of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, is challenged respectively. The impugned orders were passed in the above said EAs, which were filed under Section 47 of CPC.
2.The brief facts of the case filed by the plaintiff under the above said original suits are that the plaintiff in all the above said suits viz. C.T.Alagappan had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the properties scheduled to the above mentioned suits with the sole defendant Mr.S.Jayaraman on 23.12.1997. Curiously the sole defendant viz. S.Jayaraman remind exparte in all the above said suits, resulting an exparte decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff in all the above said suits. To execute the decree for specific performance of the contract on the basis of the sale agreement dated 23.12.1997, the plaintiff viz., C.T.Alagappan had filed the above referred EPs in the above said suits. In the mean time, Mr.B.Suryanarayana Raju, through his Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Umashnakar Viswanathan, has filed EA.Nos.7 to 11 of 2008 in EP.Nos.21 to 25 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.355, 352, 353, 354 and 356 of 2007 and 1.M/s.B.R.R.Holdings Private Ltd., 2.M/s.B.S.J.R.HOldings Private Ltd., 3.M/s.Bhima Agro Farms Private Ltd., 4.M/s.B.R.N.R.Holdings Private Ltd., and 5.Mr.B.Suryanarayana Raju, through their Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Umashnakar Viswanathan, have filed EA.No.12 of 2008 in EP.No.26 of 2007 in O.S.No.382 of 2007, and 1.M/s.B.R.R.Holdings Private Ltd., 2.M/s.B.S.J.R.HOldings Private Ltd., and 3.M/s.B.R.N.R.Holdings Private, through their Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Umashnakar Viswanathan, have filed EA.No.13 of 2008 in EP.No.27 of 2007 in O.S.No.383 of 2007, and 1.M/s.B.R.R.Holdings Private Ltd., 2.M/s.B.S.J.R.Holdings Private Ltd., and 3.Mr.B.Suryanarayana Raju, through their Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Umashnakar Viswanathan, have filed EA.No.14 of 2008 in EP.No.28 of 2007 in O.S.No.384 of 2007, claiming that properties scheduled to the above said EPs belong to one A.S.Kannan and K.Vinoth and that the defendant S.Jayaraman is not the power of attorney holder of neither A.S.Kannan nor K.Vinoth and the sale agreement dated 23.12.1997, on which basis was laid for filing the specific performance suit by the plaintiff itself is not maintainable.
3.The Execution Court had conducted a thorough enquiry in all the above said EAs, which were filed under Section 47 of CPC and also examined Mr.Umashnakar Viswanathan, the Power of Attorney Holder for the claim petitioners under the applications filed under Section 47 of CPC as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.64 on the side of the claim petitioners. There was neither oral nor documentary evidence let in on the side of the 1st respondent / plaintiff in the said EAs. After meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary and also taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners in the above said EAs as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the learned Principal District Judge / Execution Court had allowed all the above said EAs thereby dismissing all the Execution Petitions The objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the EAs filed by the third parties ie., not a party to the suit under Section 47 of CPC are not maintainable, cannot hold any water because even as per the Explanation 2 to Section 47 of CPC, a purchaser of the property is also entitled to file a petition under Section 47 of CPC. It is the case of the respondents in these revisions that the properties scheduled to the Execution Petitions / respective plaints were purchased by the petitioners under the above said EAs under Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.44. There was no material placed by the plaintiff either before the Trial Court or before the Execution Court to show that Mr.S.Jayaraman / Defendant is the Power of Attorney Holder of A.S.Kannan and K.Vinoth, the owners of the properties scheduled under Exs.P.16, 20 to 28. The Defendant -S.Jayaraman had not produced any Power of Attorney obtained from Lakshmi, Bhuvaneswari, Lalitha, Srimathi and other owners of the properties scheduled to EPs. After meticulously going through the documents produced in the EAs filed under Section 47 of CPC, the learned Principal District Judge/ Execution Court has come to an unassailable conclusion that the plaintiff in the above said suits viz., C.T.Alagappan is not entitled to execute the decrees passed in the above said suits, has consequently allowed all the EAs filed under Section 47 of CPC and dismissed all the EPs referred to above.
4.It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the defendant S.Jayaraman neither appear before the trial Court nor before the Execution Court to defend the case. Even the plaintiff has not filed any material either before the trial Court or before the Execution Court to show that he had entered into a valid sale agreement with S.Jayaraman, alleged Power of Attorney Holder, in respect of the properties scheduled to the EPs.
5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on 2008(5) MLJ 424 (Bharat Karasondas Thakka vs. Kiran Construction Co. And others) and contended that a third party to the sale agreement cannot be impleaded in the suit. The above said dictum will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because as per the Explanation 2 to Section 47 of CPC, the contesting respondents herein are entitled to file a petition under Section 47 of CPC even though they are not a party in the suit. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Execution Court / Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in the above said EAs.
6.In fine, all the above Revisions are dismissed confirming the orders passed in EA.Nos.7 to 14 of 2008 in EP.Nos.21 to 28 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.355, 352, 353, 354, 356, 382, 383, 384 of 2007, respectively, on the file of the of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. No costs.
ssv To, The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu