IRAMMA Vs. NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

(2.) The revision petitioners filed IA No.VII before the Trial Court in O.S.No.466/2016 invoking Sec. 12 of the CPC which in effect is invoking the provisions Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the CPC. Order 2 Rule 2(3) of CPC reads as below:

(3.) The contention of the revision petitioner No.2 is that he is the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.466/2016. Earlier the plaintiff in O.S.No.466/2016 as well as the revision petitioner herein were the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in O.S.No.50/2009, wherein the petitioner had made a counter claim against the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein. Acceding to his contention, while dismissing the suit O.S.No.50/2009, a injunction was granted in favour of the revision petitioner No.2 herein (defendant No.2 in O.S.No.466/2016) that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.50/2009 are restrained from alienating or transferring, mortgaging the property and also from dispossessing the defendant No.3 and his family members from the suit property until disposal of O.S.No.246/2018 (Misc.No.68/2008) and C.C.No.2144/2009. Now the revision petitioner contends that the plaintiff in O.S.No.466/2016 who was the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.50/2009 knew about the contention taken by the revision petitioner that he had denied her title. It is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.466/2016, (who was the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.50/2009) is hit by Order 2 Rule 2(3) of CPC.