S. PRASANNA Vs. SHANY JALAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No. 594/2005 on the file of the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 24-01-2015 partly allowing I.A. No. 13 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking for framing of additional issue, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22-11-2011 executed by the first defendant. The first defendant filed written statement. In the written statement the first defendant has stated that since the plaintiff had failed to perform her part of the contract, the suit schedule property was sold in favour of the second defendant as per the registered sale deed dated 06-10-2004. In view of that the plaintiff filed an application to implead the second defendant and also sought for amendment of the plaint. The application for impleading the second defendant was allowed on 26-12-2005, thereafter the plaint was amended and the prayer was also made seeking for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 06-10-2004 is not binding on the plaintiff The plaintiff further sought for cancellation of the said sale deed. The second defendant entered appearance and filed written statement.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties went for trial. The plaintiff got examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents. The first defendant was not examined. However, the second defendant was examined through her Power of Attorney holder. In support of her case, she examined the brother of the first defendant as D.W. 2. When the case was posted for arguments, the second defendant in the suit filed an application I.A. No. 13 seeking for framing of additional issue contending that she is the bona fide purchaser and she is not aware of the agreement of sale dated 22-11-2001 as per Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Trial Court has not framed any issue regarding bona fide purchase. Hence, she sought for framing of additional issue in the following manner: