V SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed questioning the order dated 23.03.2018, passed in E.A.58 of 2013 filed under order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in E.P

(2.) The appellants / claim petitioners claimed to have entered into an oral agreement of sale with regard to the suit schedule property with respondents No.2 to 9 on 26.08.1997. According to the claim petitioners, on 03.05.2007 the respondents 2 to 9 have received the entire sale consideration from the appellants and had also executed a sale deed dated 03.05.2007, bearing documents No. 9006 of 2007 conveying the schedule property. They claimed to be in possession of the property and that they also state that their names are mutated in the Revenue records.

(3.) Sri N.Hanumantha Reddy(presently - Respondent No.1), is a person who is said to be holding an agreement of sale with respondent Nos. 2 to 9, in I.A.No.1 of 2018, for the same land. This agreement was supposedly executed on 29.12.1997. The said Humanath Reddy filed a suit O.S. 36 of 2001 for specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour. The respondents in that suit remained ex-parte and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff - N. Hanumantha Reddy in the year 2005. The said Hanumanth Reddy as plaintiff - decree holder, filed E.P 10 of 2008 for the execution of the sale deed. At this stage respondent Nos. 2 to 9 filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application. The same was allowed. The delay was condoned and the ex-parte decree was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed CRP.No. 1926/2013 and CRP.No. 1927/2013 both of which were allowed. The unsuccessful respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed on 25.07.2016. A Review application was also filed and the same was dismissed. The respondents 2 to 9 then preferred an appeal against the ex-parte decree passed against them and the same is pending with ASSR No. 13561 of 2016. The delay condonation application is still pending. This is the factual matrix of the case.