PITTALA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. KURUVELLA LAXMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 24.09.2010 in I.A. No. 767 of 2010 in O.S. No. 26 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Petitioner filed the abovementioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 01.09.2005 said to have been executed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who are Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein. It is the case of the Petitioner - Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have executed an agreement of sale on 01.09.2005 in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and that Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have in turn executed the suit agreement on 17.10.2005. Seeking specific performance of the agreement held by the Petitioner, he filed the abovementioned suit. The Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1024 of 2006 for a direction to Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to produce the agreement of sale dated 01.09.2005. Defendant No. 3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated that the original agreement executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was taken away by the former by canceling the said agreement. The Petitioner thereafter filed I.A. No. 2032 of 2006 seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence by filing a photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 01.09.2005, which, according to him, was handed over by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 at the time of entering into agreement of sale dated 17.10.2005. The said I.A. was opposed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The Court below, by order dated 31.03.2009, dismissed the said I.A. on merits by holding that since the existence of the original agreement dated 01.09.2005 was denied by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to lead secondary evidence. The said order was questioned in Civil Revision Petition No. 2831 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.07.2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed another I.A. i.e., I.A. No. 767 of 2010 for the same relief as was claimed in I.A. No. 2032 of 2006. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that an identical relief having been rejected in the previous round of litigation, which was confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2831 of 2009, the said application for the same relief is not maintainable. Assailing this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, Sri K. Pavan Kumar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri J. Suresh Babu for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.