METTU KHASIM REDDY Vs. METTU JAGANNADHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to initiate prosecution against the revision petitioners in CRP No.6515 of 2006 for making false statement and giving false information on oath to Court.

(2.) The averments, in brief in the affidavit filed in support of the application are

(3.) On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, second respondent filed his counter affidavit alleging that taking advantage of the fact that there was no injunction against him, the petitioner tried to alienate item No.1 of plaint 'A' schedule to third parties in the month of November 2006 and so they filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for an injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the plaint schedule properties, on 22-11 -2006 as CRF No.1935 of 2006 and filed 3 other applications on 5-12-2006 to implead the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, and the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Thereafter the suit was transferred to another Court on 8-12-2006 along with the 3 applications filed for impleadment and those petitions were numbered as IA Nos.1274, 1275 and 1276 of 2006. As the petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was not numbered they enquired in the office of their counsel about the fate of that application and were informed that all the interlocutory applications were numbered and hence he was under a bona fide impression that the application for injunction filed on 22-11 -2006 was also numbered and was being posted to various dates, and when a telephone call was made to the office of their counsel in the trial Court to find out the number of the interlocutory application for injunction which is not being taken up for hearing the clerk of their counsel asked them call on the next day i.e., on 22-12-2006 and gave the number of the application at about 11.45 a.m. as IA No. 1382 of 2006, and so they were under a bona fide impression that CFR No. 1935 of 2006 was numbered as IA No. 1382 of 2006, and in fact papers relating to CFR No. 1935 of 2006 were handed over to them only on 7-2-2007, and so the petition is liable to be dismissed.