refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is stated that the petitioners have also deposited the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the credit of the Suit. While so, after the decree was passed by the Civil Court, the respondent came up with this impugned complaint. The impugned complaint, clearly, is an abuse of process of law. It cannot be said that the respondent was not aware that the land belonged to Arulmighu Parthasarathyswamy Thirukoil. There is a reference to the partition deed in the sale deed. The partition deed specifically states that the land belongs to Arulmighu Parthasarathyswamy Thirukoil, Triplicane. The petitioners had not suppressed the said fact. Further, the Civil Court found that it was the respondent who had prepared the sale deed to suit her convenience. The impugned complaint after the Civil Court decree, without participating in those proceedings, is only to arm-twist the petitioners. The respondent ought to have appeared and pleaded their defence in the Civil Suit. It is informed by the respondent that they have now filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree. It is for the respondent to pursue her remedy in the Civil proceedings. The allegations do not attract the offences alleged and is opposed to the 'caveat emptor' principle besides being improbable. The complaint is contrary to the findings of the Civil Court, and it is an attempt to get over 6/8
