K. ESWARAIAH Vs. BAGADI GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the Order dated 07.06.2018, whereby and where under the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur dismissed I.A. No. 187 of 2018 filed by the petitioner - defendant No.4, under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of the suit i.e. O.S.No.31 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03.03.2011 said to have been executed by Respondents 2 to 4 - Defendants 1 to 3, as power of attorney holders of the petitioner herein - defendant No.4, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows:

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No. 131 of 2015 was filed to implead Defendants 5 to 10 as parties. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the father of Defendants 5, 6 and 8 to 10. 7th defendant is purchaser of the suit property. After executing the suit agreement dated 03.03.2011, partition was affected between the petitioner and his sons on 21.04.2011 and a registered sale deed, dated 02.01.2016 was executed in favour of the 7th defendant and that the petitioner also executed gift deeds dated 09.05.2011 in favour of Defendants 8 to 10. While so, the 1st respondent sent notices in I.A.No. 131 of 2015 to the proposed parties, but the same were returned un-served and hence, they were set ex parte. Thereafter, on behalf of the 1st respondent - plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of respondents 2 to 4, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. At the stage of adducing evidence on behalf of the present petitioner - 4th defendant, I.A.No. 187 of 2018 was filed on 02.04.2018 praying to dismiss the suit on the ground that the 1st respondent played fraud on the Court. It is further averred that the 1st respondent took notices and summons on defendants 5 to 10 but the same were returned for, the addressees are in America and Bombay and that instead of taking summons by substituted service, the 1st respondent ought to have taken the same to their respective addresses. It is further stated that the plaintiff as P.W.1, in his cross-examination, has feigned ignorance of impleading defendants 5 to 10. The 1st respondent filed the counter stating that the petitioner is the father of defendants 5, 6 and 8 to 10 and the 7th defendant got property through one of the sons of the petitioner. The petitioner is aware of impleading defendants 5 to 10 as parties to the suit and setting them ex parte.