LAGHUVARAPU SUDHARANI Vs. G. HANUMANTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 23.09.2020 in I.A.No.356 of 2020 in O.S.No.166 of 2018, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC for return of Ex.A1, original registered agreement of sale bearing document No.9195 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017, is dismissed by the trial Court, on the ground that the suit itself is decreed basing on Ex.A1, as such, the same is superceded by disposal of the suit and the execution of sale deed is also completed in pursuance to the orders in E.P.No.774 of 2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since Ex.A1 itself is filed by the petitioners themselves for specific performance of the same and the suit i.e., O.S.No.166 of 2018 itself is decreed on 30.04.2018 and that the registered sale deed No.955 of 2020 was executed on 23.01.2020 in pursuance to orders in E.P.No.774 of 2018, as such, the document is liable to be returned to the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners will substitute the same with the certified copy of the same. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment reported in the case of K.Veerappa Gounder v. Pushpathal in C.R.P.(PD).No.3192 of 2008 [Manu/TN/0230/2009].

(3.) In this case, it is to be seen that the suit i.e., O.S.No.166 of 2018 itself is decreed on 30.04.2018 and registered sale deed No.955 of 2020 is also executed on 23.01.2020. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the same is passed without considering Order XXXIX Rule 9 of CPC. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it has become necessary to extract Order 13 Rule 9(1) of CPC.