CHEPPULLA RADHAKRISHNA Vs. CHEPPUULLA ARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 22/10/2022, dismissing I.A.No.239 of 2022 in O.S.No.78 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 r/w Order VI Rule 17 and Sec. 151 CPC to add the proposed party/2nd respondent as the 2nd defendant in the suit and to permit the petitioner to make the following consequential amendments to the plaint :-

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note dtd. 18/4/2014. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.657 of 2017 to attach the petition schedule property before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. The trial Court ordered conditional attachment on 7/4/2017 directing to issue notice to the respondent/ defendant to furnish security for the suit amount within 48 hours from the date of service of notice, failing which to attach the property. The property is situated in Tuni Mandal and therefore, notice of attachment was sent to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tuni for service on the respondent/defendant. The Amin served notice on 24/4/2017 granting 48 hours time to furnish security. As the defendant failed to furnish the security, the property was attached on 26/4/2017. Subsequenlty, the defendant appeared and filed counter in I.A.No.657 of 2017. On 8/9/2017, the petition was allowed and the attachment was made absolute. Later, the trial Court went on the trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and N.Negeswara Rao was examined as D.W.2 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of D.W.3 on 17/1/2022.

(3.) The petitioner/plaintiff contended that after commencement of trial, he came to know that the defendant transferred the petition schedule property in I.A.No.657 of 2017 in favour of his son (the proposed defendant No.2) by executing a registered sale deed on 21/4/2017 and that initially the plaintiff thought that the defendant sold the property to a third party, but his enquiries revealed that the transferee is the natural son of the defendant given in adoption to Sri Pendyla Chinna Surya Narayana who is the father-in-law of the defendant and sold the property to avoid the debts. The sale deed was marked as Ex.A2 in the crossexamination of D.W.1, and D.W.1 denied the relationship between him and R.2. D.W.2, in his cross-examination admitted that R.2 is the natural son of D.W.1 and that R.2 was given in adoption to the father-in-law of D.W.1. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant was watching the proceedings and immediately after filing of the suit and coming to know about the order of attachment, he transferred the property in the name of his natural son to avoid the debts and later he received the notice from Court and even then he did not put to the notice of the Court about the sale deed till he was examined as D.W.1. The plaintiff further contended that the transaction is not a sale and it is only to avoid the suit debt and the defendant fraudulently and in collusion with the natural son, transferred the petition schedule property by mentioning it is a sale deed and thus, R.2 became universal donee and is liable to pay the suit debt. As such, by abundant caution and to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the petition is filed vide I.A.No.239 of 2022 to add R.2 as D.2 in the suit and permit the consequential amendments.