KUNJ BIHARI Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is craving for disposal for the last 13 years on a simple issue as to whether the additional issues proposed by the petitioners as defendants in the suit must be framed or not.

(2.) The undisputed facts leading to filing of the civil revision petition are that respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.1721 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court - cum -VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for specific performance of agreement of sale against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 14. It is the case of respondent No.1 that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the original owners of the suit schedule property of which he is a tenant under oral tenancy. It is his further case that in pursuance of the oral agreement of sale, respondent Nos.2 and

(3.) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him. That the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 10 have purchased separate portions of the suit schedule property from respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.3 having died, respondent Nos.11 to 14 were brought on record as his LRs. Neither respondent No.2 nor the LRs of respondent No.3 have contested the suit. The petitioners and other respondents, who are purchasers, are alone contesting the suit. 3.The petitioners have filed I.A.No.276 of 2003 under Rule XIV Order 5 CPC for framing the following additional issues: