ANNE NARAYANA RAO Vs. KALIDINDI APPALA NARASIMHA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, nominee of decree holders (plaintiffs), in suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 filed E.A.No.29 of 2018 in E.A.No.95 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in O.S.No.180 of 2006, to reject the E.A.No.95 of 2012. The Court below by order dtd. 13/6/2022 dismissed E.A.No.29 of 2018. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

(2.) (a) Facts, in brief, are that 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.95 of 2012 under Sec. 47 of CPC. In the petition, it was contended that decree holders 1 to 8, being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 7/12/2005 against the defendant, arrayed as 10th respondent herein, in respect of 1500 square meters or 1800 square yards i.e. 2/3rd share of Ac.2.30 cents. Defendant did not contest the suit and hence, the suit was decreed exparte vide judgment dtd. 23/3/2007. After the suit was decreed, decree holders filed E.P.No.17 of 2007 and, also filed E.A.No.23 of 2007 nominating the revision petitioner. The said petition was allowed. The Court executed the sale deed in favour of nominee on 26/7/2012. The nominee filed E.A.No.87 of 2012 seeking delivery of schedule property and filed E.A.No.88 of 2012 seeking police aid.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that claim petitioner is 3rd party to the suit, and he filed the claim petition to set aside the sale deed dtd. 26/7/2012 executed by the Court basing on agreement of sale dtd. 2/2/2006. Claim petitioner based on agreement of sale dtd. 2/2/2006 filed suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 seeking specific performance and the said suit is pending. The suit agreement in the present O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dtd. 7/12/2005. Unless the claim petitioner gets right over the property, he cannot maintain the claim petition and the claim petition itself is barred by limitation and prayed the Court to reject the claim petition.