ANURAJ Vs. SHEEL BUILDCON PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revisions (No. 3561 of 2008 filed by the petitioner -plaintiff against the order dated 14. 5.2008 vide which a plea filed by the defendant -respondent no.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 came to be granted by the learned Trial Court and No. 3560 of 2008 against the order dated 14.5.2008 vide which the learned Trial Court allowed a plea filed by M/s Buzz Hotels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 169 the subsequent vendee 170) under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10, Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sections 146 and 151 C.P.C.for its impleadment as a party).

(2.) I shall first proceed to deal with the Civil Revision No. 3561 of 2008.

(3.) THE plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance, of the land under reference on the plea that defendant -respondent no.2 had agreed to sell that land to him, vide agreement dated 24.6.2004 and, in terms thereof, sale deed was to be executed by or on 25.3.2005. However, before that date could approach, defendant no.2 sold that very land to defendant -respondent no.1, vide sale deed dated 8.12.2004, for a fictitious consideration. Both the defendantsrespondents had been proceeded exparte in the suit which came to be decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006. On a plea filed by the plaintiff -petitioner, for the execution of the decree, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner who executed sale deed in favour of the former. A mutation on the basis thereof also came to be sanctioned. It was thereafter only that the defendant -respondent no.1 filed a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to obtain the setting aside of the exparte decree dated 5.8.2006. The plea, raised in the course thereof, was that he was a bonafide purchaser of the land in suit for consideration, that he had not been served for appearance at the trial, that he never evaded service and that effecting of substituted service by means of publication of a court notice in a newspaper was insignificant as that particular newspaper had no circulation in the area where office of the defendant respondent no.1 is located.