T SRINIVAS Vs. E RAVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred under Section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the dismissal of two claim petitions filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. in E.P.No.34 of 2007 in O.S.No.8 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the III-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

(2.) THE appellants herein are the claim petitioners. The respondent No.1 in both the appeals is the decree-holder / plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 1996 filed for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale executed by the respondent No.2 herein. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 15.4.2003. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed CCCA.No.340 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 15.11.2006 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the defendants were also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 10.08.2007.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is contended by Sri L.Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petitions as not maintainable. It is also contended that the procedure adopted by the Court below in dismissing the claim petitions without permitting the claim petitioners to produce oral and documentary evidence on their behalf was not only contrary to the provisions of Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. but also in violation of the directions of this Court in CRP NOs.2196 & 4101 of 2011. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon CHALUGU BASIVI NAIDU v. CHALUGU BHEEMI NAIDU (2002 (2) ALT 186).