KRITHI CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. K. THIPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/second defendant under Order 16 Rule 21 of C.P.C. to summon defendant No. 1/respondent-3 herein for giving evidence on behalf of petitioner herein.

(2.) The records reveal that respondents 1 and 2 herein (who are the plaintiffs) filed suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 20.12.2004 executed by first defendant (third respondent herein) based on the forged/fabricated/created General Power of Attorney, in favour of second defendant (petitioner herein) in respect of the suit schedule property as null and void and for consequential reliefs.

(3.) In the said suit, though, defendant No. 1 filed written statement earlier agreeing to the case of the defendant No. 2, sought permission of the Court to amend the written statement subsequently. Thereafter, para. 22(a) of the written statement was inserted by amending the written statement with the permission of the Court. In para. 22(a) of the written statement, defendant No. 1 has emphatically conceded that general power of attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiff is bogus and the same cannot be relied upon, which means that defendant No. 1 has admitted in his written statement, the case of the plaintiff. He has also prayed in para. 22 of the written statement that the suit be decreed. Subsequently, very defendant No. 1 filed one more application to withdraw such admissions made by him. Such application has been rejected by the Court below. The said order was questioned by defendant No. 1 in W.P. No. 9561/14 which came to be dismissed on 10.3.2014. Thus, it is clear that the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 as it stands now, after 3.11.2010 supports the case of the plaintiffs fully. Defendant No. 1 as aforementioned has prayed for decreeing the suit.