PALAKURTHY VENKATESWARLU Vs. NOROJU MANORAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the revisions arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Revision Petitioner in both the revisions is the 1st defendant. 1st respondent in both the revisions is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 in both the revisions are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit O.S.No. 13 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16-9-1992 executed by Venkateswarlu, father of respondents 2 and 3 and husband of 4th respondent in favour of 1st respondent. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27-4-2001 directing respondents 2 to 4 to execute a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the plaint schedule property and no relief was granted as against the revision petitioner who is a tenant in possession of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 303 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. The learned trial Judge while allowing the said I.A.No. 303 of 2001 passed the following Order:

(3.) Subsequently, i.e., on 14-9-2001 revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 479 of 2001 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to review the order dated 4-9-2001 in LA. No, 303 of 2001 by setting aside the ex parte decree against respondents 2 to 4, i.e., defendants 2 to 4 also. He also filed LA. No. 480 of 2001 under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. to receive certain documents. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed both the petitions on 26-4-2002. Aggrieved thereby revision petitioner preferred C.R.P.No. 2681 of 2002 against the dismissal of I.A.No. 480 of 2001 and C.R.PNo. 2783 of 2001 against the dismissal of I.A.No. 479 of 2001.