PEDDIREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY Vs. POTTIPATI ROSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Lok Adalat Award dtd. 8/12/2018 in LAC.No.778 of 2018 of District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, in OS.No.207 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa and to quash the said award as it was obtained by playing fraud on the respondent No.8.

(2.) Heard Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that they are brothers and they purchased land extent Ac.0.51 cents of site in S.No.908/1A2A1A with specific boundaries situated in Chinnachowk village fields i.e., 8thward called Prakash Nagar of Kadapa Municipal Area under a registered sale deed dtd. 11/4/2011 for a valuable consideration. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property to the knowledge of one and all including the respondents 1 to 7. Subsequently, the 1stpetitioner gifted his share in favour of the 2ndrespondent through registered gift settlement deed, dtd. 7/10/2017. Hence, the 2ndpetitioner has become the owner and possessor of the landed property extent Ac.0.51 cents situated in S.No.908/1A2A1A. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. He also mortgaged the said property to the SBI Main Branch, Kadapa. While things stood thus, respondents 1 to 5 (plaintiffs) filed OS.No.207 of 2018 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, arraying the writ petitioners and respondents 6 and 7 as defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from claiming any right or authority in respect of the plaint schedule i.e., Ac.0.51 cents of open site situated in D.No.908/1A2A1 of Chinnachowk village fields. The petitioners being the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit filed their vakalat through an advocate and the respondents 6 and 7 being the defendants 1 and 2 also filed vakalat but they failed to file written statements thereby they were set ex parte. Subsequently, the respondents 6 and 7 (defendants 1 and 2) filed a petition under Order IX Rule 7 CPC along with written statement and the said petition was allowed and their written statement was received. But the petitioners could not file any such petition due to miscommunication between the petitioners and their advocate.