JAI BHARAT PLYWOOD AND HARDWARE Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15-07-2009 passed in I.A. No. 26 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1054 of 2007 [O.S. No. 1302 of 2006 (old)] on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/defendant in O.S. No. 1054 of 2007 [O.S. No. 1302 of 2006 (old)] on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge, at Hyderabad, are: The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 1054 of 2007 [O.S. No. 1302 of 2006 (old)]. G. Satyanarayana, the father of the plaintiff, owned a house bearing No. 8-3-231/A/84/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4 etc. situated at Sri Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The petitioner took the premises bearing No. 8-3-231/A/84/3 in the year 1998. An year thereafter, he also took the premises bearing No. 8-3-231/A/84/4. The two shops are adjacent to each other. The monthly rent for both the shops in the year 2005 was Rs. 4,880/- (Rs. 2,440/- per shop). The said Satyanarayana entered into an agreement with the petitioner in respect of sale of the premises bearing No. 8-3-231/A/84/3 in the month of September, 2005. The petitioner paid an advance of Rs. 51,000/- through cheque bearing No. 842350 drawn on the State Bank of Saurashtra, Nampally Branch, Hyderabad. The said Satyanarayana executed a gift settlement deed in favour of his son, who is the respondent herein, on 18-10-2005. Thereupon the petitioner issued a notice dated 28-12-2005 demanding Satyanarayana to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to the oral agreement of sale. Satyanarayana issued a reply notice dated 12-01-2006 admitting the agreement of sale and directing him to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain registered sale deed in respect of the shop No. 8-3-231/A/84/3 and vacate the adjacent shop bearing No. 8-3-231/A/84/4. For better appreciation, I may refer para 7 of the reply notice, which reads as under:

(3.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.