BAJRANG LAL AGARWAL Vs. GAYATRI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the orders dated 8.10.2012 of the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowing the application of the plaintiff in IA No. 357 of 2011 in OS No. 728 of 2007 filed under Order XV Rule (2)(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code', for short) requesting to pronounce the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and against the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 and allow the suit to be proceeded against the rest of the respondents/defendants who are nominal parties to the said suit. The facts leading to the present civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in brief, are as follows: 'The 1st respondent/plaintiff ('the plaintiff, for short) filed a suit against the revision petitioner/3rd defendant ('the 3rd defendant', for short) and other respondents/defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 for specific performance directing the defendants 1 to 7 to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her nominees in respect of Flat bearing No. 202 situate in the 2nd floor of the building named and styled as A.K. Enclave Phase II ("B" Block) admeasuring 2350 square feet approximate plinth area together with proportionate undivided share of land equivalent to 90 square yards, in the land bearing Municipal Nos. 8-2-350 and 8-2-350/A, situated at Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants 1 to 3, through a learned Advocate, had put in appearance having given vakalat to the said learned Advocate. A written statement was filed by the 3rd defendant (revision petitioner herein) resisting the suit. However, no written statement was filed at that stage on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 had engaged the services of another learned Advocate and had filed a common written statement. In the said written statement of the defendants 1 and 2, it is inter alia contended as follows:

(2.) Having regard to the above contents of the written statement of the defendants 1 and 2; the plaintiff had filed the subject interlocutory application requesting the Court to pronounce judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff, however, prayed that the suit be permitted to be continued to be proceeded against the rest of the defendants who are nominal parties to the suit. The defendants 1 and 2 did not resist the said application by filing a counter. The 3rd defendant having filed a counter resisted the said application of the plaintiff. In the said counter, the 3rd defendant had contended inter alia to the following effect:

(3.) Aggrieved of the said orders of the trial Court, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the 3rd defendant.