M ESWARAMMA Vs. N KESHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st Respondent filed O.S. No. 221 of 2000 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB. Nagar, against the Petitioner and Respondents 2 to 6, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. It was pleaded that the agreement of sale was entered into on 15.02.1996 in respect of Acs. 10.00 of land in survery No. 43 of Yellareddyguda Village, Keesara Mandal and that in spite repeated requests, sale deed was not executed. The Petitioner figured as 1st Defendant in the suit, and Respondents 2 to 6 i.e. Defendants 2 to 6, are her children. On an application filed by the Petitioner herein, Respondents 7 to 18 i.e. purchasers of plots carved out of the suit schedule property from the 1st Respondent were added as parties. Respondents 19 to 39 were also added as parties under similar circumstances.

(2.) The suit was decreed ex parte on 18.11.2002. The Petitioner herein alone filed I.A. No. 3695 of 2002 under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Through order, dated 24.01.2003, the trial Court allowed the I.A., by imposing condition that the Petitioner shall deposit the costs awarded in the decree and shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs in the I.A. to the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 732 of 2003 feeling aggrieved by the condition imposed by the trial Court, as to payment of costs in the decree, quantified at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The revision was allowed on 12.04.2006. The condition as to deposit of costs in the decree was set aside.

(3.) The trial of the suit was resumed. At that stage, the Petitioner filed a memo dated 01.02.2010, informing the trial Court that the notices were not issued to other Defendants in the suit, after the ex parte decree was set aside. It appears that no specific order was passed on the memo. Therefore, she filed I.A. No. 86 of 2011 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to issue notice to Respondents 2 to 38 for resumption of the trial. The application was opposed by the 1st Respondent. He pleaded that the ex parte decree was set aside, only in so far as it concerns the Petitioner herein. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 28.01.2011. The same is challenged in this revision.