Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3208 (MAD)

Ambrose & Another v. Neelamegam

2008-09-02

S.RAJESWARAN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants to set aside the Order dated 14.02.2007 made in I.A. No.288 of 2005 in O.S. No.85 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur. 2. The defendants in O.S. No.85 of 2004 are the revision petitioners before this Court. The Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 11.06.2003. Written statement has been filed by the petitioners/defendants and the Suit is being contested. Pending Suit, an Application in I.A. No.288 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of the suit property. The said Application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The Trial Court by order dated 14.02.2007 dismissed that Application. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants. 3. This Court on 13.09.2007 ordered notice and granted interim stay. The respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance through counsel. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. The Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 11.06.2003. Pending Suit an Application in I.A. No.288 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of the suit property as the sale consideration contained in sale agreement is very low and therefore such an agreement could not have been entered into by the revision petitioners for such a low consideration. According to the petitioners/defendants, the property is situated at a commercial area and therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner would help the Court to decide the issue in the Suit. On the objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court dismissed the Application which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is illegal warranting interference by this Court. 6. According to the petitioners/defendants, the property is situated at a commercial area and therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner would help the Court to decide the issue in the Suit. On the objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court dismissed the Application which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is illegal warranting interference by this Court. 6. In my opinion, the Trial Court has correctly come to the conclusion that in a Suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, the Suit is to be decided on the issues, i.e., whether the sale agreement is validly executed and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. That being so, the Application taken out by the petitioners/defendants to value the property is not relevant and germane to the issue. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. 8. Considering the fact that the Suit is of the year 2004, I direct the Trial Court viz., the Sub-Court, Ariyalur to dispose of the Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2004 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.