Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

JUDGMENT

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. In a Civil Revision Petition filed Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"), challenging an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 862 days in seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree for specific performance, the High Court found that the ex-parte decree was a nullity, as it was passed against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian duly appointed in terms of the procedure contemplated Under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code. Therefore, the High Court, exercising its power of superintendence Under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the ex-parte decree itself on condition that the Petitioners before the High Court/Defendants pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, representing the amount already spent by the decree holders in purchasing stamp paper etc. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the decree holders are before us in this special leave petition.

2. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Defendants.

3. In a suit O.S. No. 264 of 2013 filed by the Petitioners-herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.04.2011, the Respondents were duly served with summons, but after having entered appearance through counsel they remained ex-parte. The trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte on 08.04.2015.

4. At this stage it may be relevant to take note of one fact, namely, that the Petitioners sought, as an alternate relief, a decree for refund of the money paid with interest at 18% per annum in the event of the Court not granting the relief of specific performance. But the trial Court held albeit without reasons, that the Petitioners are entitled, for the primary