MANDAPALU RAMAIAH Vs. CONTDRATHI RAMANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No. 794 of 2012 has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit challenging the correctness of the orders passed in IA No. 1677 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. IA No. 1677 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 840 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC (which is IA Sr. No. 6274 of 2010). The respondents 2, 3 and 4 in this revision filed those two applications. The 1st respondent herein was the sole defendant in the suit OS No. 21 of 2004. Suit OS No. 21 of 2004 was instituted on 2.9.2004 against the 1st respondent-defendant herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 22.4.2003 concerning land of an extent of Act. 2.36 gts. Since the defendant has failed to contest the suit, he was initially set ex parte on 19.1.2005. The defendant moved IA No. 110 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the said ex parte order and it was allowed subject to the defendant depositing a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Since the defendant had failed to deposit the said sum of money, the IA No. 110 of 2005 was dismissed. That order was carried in revision to this court by the defendant by preferring CRP No. 858 of 2005. That revision was dismissed by this court on 12.7.2005. Then the defendant carried the matter to Supreme Court by preferring SLP No. 19359 of 2005 and the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP on 22.10.2007. Thereafter, the suit OS No. 21 of 2004 was decreed ex parte on 3.7.2008. The 1st respondent/defendant has not preferred any appeal against the said decree.

(2.) IA Sr. No. 6274 of 2010 has been moved on 12.11.2010 for setting aside the said ex parte decree passed on 3.7.2008. The case of the respondents 2, 3, 4 herein who moved the IA Sr. No. 6274 of 2010 was that the defendant in the suit being the original owner executed an Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney on 13.9.2004 in favour of Sarvasri Ajmeera Prahlad, Yada Venugopal and Pingle Sampath Reddy. These GPA holders in turn executed a regular Sale Deed on 15.9.2004 in favour of Ravula Dayanand and Gunda Rajeswara Rao. These two subsequent purchasers together with adjacent land owners developed land of a total extent of Ac. 9.31 gts inclusive of suit land of Ac. 2.36 gts and respondents 2 and 3 herein sold sites, to 17 persons under several registered documents, forming part of the layout. They sold plot No. 66 to Gujja Sampath Reddy who is the 3rd petitioner in the I.A. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 herein that when he was making an attempt to construct a compound wall around a plot of land, the petitioner - plaintiff herein arrived at the spot on 8.11.2010 and obstructed the construction of the compound wall setting out that he entered into an agreement of sale with the original defendant in the suit on 22.4.2003 and that he filed suit OS No. 21 of 2004 for specific performance of the same and obtained a decree of the said suit on 3.7.2008. That is how the respondent No. 2 herein came to know of the collusive decree dated 3.7.2008. Hence, he along with two others filed IA Sr. No. 6274 of 2010 for setting aside the decree dated 3.7.2008. Since there was also some delay in moving the said IA, IA No. 1677 of 2010 has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act though the limitation should be computed from the date of knowledge viz., 8.7.2010 and when so computed there was no delay in fact in moving the IA Sr. No. 6274 of 2010.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit contending that respondents 3 and 4 herein who are petitioners 2 and 3 in the IA were put on notice by him on 28.12.2004 bringing out the agreement of sale dated 22.4.2003 and that the plaintiff-petitioner herein has filed the suit in question and that the court has passed a status quo order in IA No. 2861 of 2004 in the suit and in spite of the same, and when such an order of the court is subsisting, they purchased the land in question. In spite of the same, they have not moved in the matter to contest the suit.