RAJ KUMAR ATRI Vs. RAGHUVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these two revision petitions, preferred under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitioners have challenged the impugned Orders dtd. 25/8/2022, passed in Civil Misc. Applications No. 18/2022 and 17/2022 by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bundi (Rajasthan), dismissing their two separate applications filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Since the points involved in both revision petitions are substantially similar and petitioners and respondents No. 1 are same parties, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff-decree holder has put in appearance as caveator.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused the impugned orders and material placed before this Court.

(3.) The relevant facts for deciding these petitions, in nut shell, are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff instituted two separate civil suits for specific performance of two agreements dtd. 30/8/1991 against other respondents No. 2 and 3. Both agreements were executed solely in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff. In civil suit No. 23/2000, plaintiff averred in para Nos. 2, 5 and 6 of the plaint that defendants agreed to sale their 2/3 share in agricultural lands of khasra No. 63, at Village Ren, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, to plaintiff and other 8 persons, however, agreement has been executed in name of plaintiff alone and later on, after payment of substantive amount against agreed sale consideration, in furtherance to the agreement to sale dtd. 30/8/1991, defendants delivered possession of 278 Bighas agricultural land to plaintiff on 31/1/1992 and since then plaintiff and other eight persons, named in schedule 'B' appended with plaint have been in continuous cultivatory possession. In the Schedule 'B', appended with plaint, names of nine persons including plaintiff- Raghuveer Singh and both petitioners Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar are mentioned. It was averred that land was agreed to be purchased jointly by plaintiff and other eight persons. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that, in pursuance of agreement in question, sale deed(s) was/were to be executed and registered in the name of plaintiff and other eight persons jointly or severally according to instructions of plaintiff and prayer was made in the plaint in the similar tune. This civil suit was decreed in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff vide judgment dtd. 16/1/2004 in the following terms: