Y PRABHAKARA RAO Vs. P S ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.295 of 2005 on the file of the Court of XVII -Addl. Chief Judge -cum -III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The respondent No.2 herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and recovery of possession. The plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property through defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 in his written statement did not dispute the same. In fact, he supported the case of the plaintiff and as such no issue is settled against the defendant No.3.

(2.) IT appears that the defendant No.2 was set ex parte and defendant No.1 filed written statement contesting the suit claim. During the trial, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as P.Ws.1 & 2 and they were cross -examined by the counsel for the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got himself examined as D.W.1 and another witness on his behalf was examined as D.W.2. After the closure of the evidence of defendant No.1, the defendant No.3 came forward to give evidence. That was objected to by the defendant No.1 and he filed I.A.No.743 of 2010 with a prayer not to permit the defendant No.3 to give evidence as he is not contesting the suit claim. The said application was allowed by the Court below by order dated 8.4.2013 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant No.3.

(3.) AS noticed above, this is a case where the defendant No.3 is sailing with the plaintiff. Admittedly no relief is claimed against the defendant No.3 and no issue is settled against him. That being so, the defendant No.3 has to depose before the commencement of the evidence of the contesting defendants.