THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 943 OF 2014 Dated:18-06-2014 Between:
Katta Janardhan ... PETITIONER AND A. Sadananda Reddy and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 943 OF 2014 ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 19-03-2014 passed in E.A No. 2 of 2014 in E.A No. 10 of 2013 in E.P No. 24 of 2007 in O.S No. 238 of 2002 by the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner who is a third party to the suit.
The petitioner stated that he purchased the E.P schedule property from one A. Narsing Rao for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed bearing No.5536/2006 dated 27-09-2006 and that his vendor purchased the property in question from the 2nd respondent – judgment debtor through registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA. According to the petitioner, as on the date of his purchase, there was an old house on the property in question and that he renovated the same and constructed an additional floor over the same and has been in peaceful possession of the same. On 05-03-2013, the Court staff came to his premises and demanded to vacate and handover possession of the property in question stating that decree was passed in favour the 1st respondent in O.S No. 238 of 2002 and that the 1st respondent got executed the registered sale deed through Court and filed E.P 24 of 2007. The petitioner stated that on showing valid title documents, the Court staff left the property in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had fabricated the agreement of sale and filed the aforesaid suit against the 2nd respondent in which the 2nd respondent filed written statement contending that she alienated the property in question in favour of his vendor and, therefore, it is just and necessary to summon the 2nd respondent to prove the fraud committed by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent – decree holder opposed the application stating that the petitioner is a transferee pendentilite, that the decree had been passed after full fledged trial and that there are no circumstances warranting to entertain the application.
The trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties and on an evaluation of the material on record and relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Silver Line Forum Pvt., Ltd., vs. Rajiv Trust and another[1] and Usha Sinha vs. Dinaram[2] dismissed the application.
Heard and perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Court below relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above rejected the request of the petitioner to summon the respondent – judgment debtor to adduce evidence in the E.A. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the above referred decisions. But in the present case, the respondent – judgment debtor in the written statement filed by her had taken a specific plea that she had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner but the respondent – decree holder did not take steps to implead him. The petitioner herein also alleged that thereafter the respondent – decree holder in collusion with the respondent – judgment debtor played fraud and obtained decree. The Court below also relied on the order passed by this Court in C.R.P No. 4399 of 2013 dated 25-10-2013 preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the Court below directing the petitioner to lead evidence in respect of the allegations of fraud played upon the Court. This Court in the aforesaid revision made it clear that the evidence to be let in by the revision petitioner should be restricted only to the alleged fraud played upon the Court. In the aforesaid revision petition, this Court had discussed only with regard to the evidence to be let in by the petitioner herein and has not dealt with the issue with regard to the evidence of the respondent – judgment debtor.
In view of the fact that the respondent – judgment debtor in her written statement took a specific plea that she had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, in my considered view, the Court below ought to have summoned the respondent – judgment debtor to adduce evidence as a witness in E.A No. 10 of 2013.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, E.A No. 2 of 2014 filed in E.A No. 10 of 2013 in E.P No. 24 of 2007 in O.S No. 238 of 2002 stands allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 18th June, 2014 ks
[1] AIR 1998 SC 1754
[2] 2008 (7) SCC 144