C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the revisions arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) REVISION Petitioner in both the revisions is the 1st defendant. 1st respondent in both the revisions is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 in both the revisions are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit o. S. No. 13 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16-9-1992 executed by Venkateswarlu, father of respondents 2 and 3 and husband of 4th respondent in favour of 1st respondent. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27-4-2001 directing respondents 2 to 4 to execute a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the plaint schedule property and no relief was granted as against the revision petitioner who is a tenant in possession of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 303 of 2001 under Order 9 rule 13 C. P. C. to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. The learned trial Judge while allowing the said I. A. No. 303 of 2001 passed the following Order:"petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 200. 00 to the Legal Services authority with a specific direction that the petitioner (1st defendant) is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses already examined by the 1st respondent (plaintiff) and defendants 2 to 4 and the respondents 2 to 4 herein. The 1st defendant is also further directed to complete his evidence within ten days from the date of passing order by adducing evidence day-by-day, failing which the petition stands dismissed. Further, with regard to the Judgment passed by this Court against the Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit stands good. No change or deviation and further respondents 2 to 4 and defendants 2 to 4 in the suit have no right in allowing this petition and they cannot agitate for anything now and with this observation this petition is disposed of. "

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, i. e. , on 14-9-2001 revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 479 of 2001 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 c. P. C. to review the order dated 4-9-2001 in la. No, 303 of 2001 by setting aside the ex parte decree against respondents 2 to 4, i. e. , defendants 2 to 4 also. He also filed LA. No. 480 of 2001 under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. to receive certain documents. The learned senior Civil Judge dismissed both the petitions on 26-4-2002. Aggrieved thereby revision petitioner preferred C. R. P. No. 2681 of 2002 against the dismissal of I. A. No. 480 of 2001 and C. R. PNo. 2783 of 2001 against the dismissal of I. A. No. 479 of 2001.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the deceased 1st defendant, after entering into an oral agreement of sale in favour of the revision petitioner, who filed a suit seeking specific performance of that agreement against the deceased 1st defendant and brought on record respondents 2 to 4 as his legal representatives subsequent to his death, if the ex parte decree passed against respondents 2 to 4 in this suit is not set aside, revision Petitioner would be put to great hardship and so the ex parte decree against respondents 2 to 4 also is liable to be set aside. It is his contention that the documents filed along with I. A. No. 480 of 2001 are very relevant for proving the contention of the revision petitioner, and since those documents were filed in the suit filed by the revision petitioner against the deceased 1st defendant, he could not produce those documents in this suit earlier, and the learned trial Judge without keeping in view that said fact improperly dismissed the petition. He relied on Estralla Rubber v. Dassestate (Petitioner) Ltd. ; K. Chinna biddamma v. J. Krishnama Naidu and others; gujjari Vittal v. Padala Sadanandam and c. Munaswami v. V. Narasimhulu Chetty.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document