R VEERRAJU Vs. P BABURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.R.Ps. arise out of two orders passed in I.A.No. 25 of 1995 in O.S.No. 129 of 1994on the file of the District Munsif, Prathipadu. C.R.P. No.1270 of 1995 is filed against the order dated 15-2-1995 in I.A.No. 25 of 1995 and C.R.P.NO. 1271 of 1995 is filed against the order dated 8-3-1995 in I.A.No. 25 of 1995. As these two CRPs are preferred against I.A.No. 25 of 1995, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Petitioners are the plaintiff. They instituted the suit O.S.No. 129 of 1994 for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, petitioners also obtained an adinterim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their so-called possession. The defendants who are the respondents in these CRPs, appeared before the lower Court and sought vacating the interim order. At that stage, probably, the petitioners/plaintiffs realised that the suit for permanent injunction filed by them has to be necessarily converted into one for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated 4-6-1988 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second plaintiff.

(3.) In order to convert the suit one for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 4-6-1988, petitioners filed I.A.No. 25 of 1995 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint for a decree of specific performance. Petitioners claimed in the application that pursuant to the sale agreement dated 4-6-1988 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second plaintiff, they were put in possession of the suit schedule properties. This application was however, though opposed by the defendant-respondents, the lower Court ordered the application on 12-5-1995 subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty on the document, agreement of sale dated 4-6-1988. I.A.No. 25/95 was ordered subject to the condition that the petitioners/ plaintiffs pay the stamp duty and penalty on the said document i.e., agreement of sale. Time for payment was also granted. On 8-3-1995 it was complained to the lower Court that the petitioners have not deposited the stamp duty and penalty as directed by the Court while ordering I.A.No. 25 of 1995 on 15-2-1995. The Court found that the petitioners had failed to comply with the orders dated 15-2-1995 and therefore, dismissed the application I.A.No. 25 of 1995 by an order dated 8-3-1995. The orders passed in I.A.No. 25/95 dated 15-2-1995 and 8-3-1995 are the subject matter of challenge in these two CRPs.