These two Revision Petitions which are directed against the order dated 19.10.2009 in I.A.No.364 of 2008 in I.A.No.188 of 1996 in O.S.No.33 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur are heard together and decided by this common order:

2. O.S.No.33 of 1985 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.04.1980 was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 11.8.1992. The petitioners in these two Revision petitions filed I.A.No.188 of 1996 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11.08.1992. The said application was dismissed for default on 7.6.2006. Thereafter, the Revision petitioners filed I.A.No.364 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order dated 7.6.2006 and to restore I.A.No.188 of 1996. After hearing both the parties, I.A.No.364 of 2008 was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 19.10.2009. The said order is under challenge in these two Revision Petitions.

3. I have heard Sri S.V. Sundararajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P.No.254 of 2010, Sri R. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.494 of 2010 as well as Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

4. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice the following undisputed facts borne out of the record.

5. The respondents 1 to 5 herein M. Anjinappa and four others filed O.S.No.30 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Judge, Penukonda, against one L. Venkata Krishna Reddy for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.04.1980 executed by him in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was renumbered as O.S.No.33 of 1985 on transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The suit was contested by the defendant L. Venkata Krishna Reddy by filing a written statement dated 26.06.1984. Subsequently, the defendants son by name L. Ramana Gopala Reddy was impleaded as defendant No.2. While the suit was coming up for trial, the advocate for the defendants reported no instructions and they were set ex parte. Consequently, by judgment dated 11.08.1992, the suit was decreed ex parte directing the 1st defendant to execute a Registered Sale Deed as per the terms of the Agreement of Sale, dated 19.04.1980.

6. On 10.09.1992 the 1t defendant L. Venkata Krishna Reddy - filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.8.1992. Even before the said application (I.A.No.363 of 1994) was taken up for enquiry, L. Venkata Krishna Reddy died. By that time, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge was constituted at Hindupur and I.A.No.363 of 1994 was renumbered as I.A.No.188 of 1996. While so, the wife of L. Venkata Krishna Reddy, by name L. Saraswathamma and his daughter P. Srilatha filed I.A.No.189 of 1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner L. Venkata Krishna Reddy - in I.A.No.188 of 1996 and the same was ordered on 1.11.2003. By virtue of the said order, apart from adding L. Saraswathamma and P. Sri lath a as petitioners 2 & 3, four sons of the deceased L. Venkata Krishna Reddy, including the 2nd defendant - 1. Ramana Gopal Reddy, were added as respondents 6 to 9 to I.A.No.188 of 1996 as it was pleaded by 1. Saraswathamma that they were not evincing any interest to pursue the proceedings. In the meanwhile, the 1st plaintiff M. Anjinappa died and his legal representatives were added as respondents 10 to 16 to I.A.No.188 of 1996. Similarly, on the death of the 5th plaintiff M. Govinda Reddy, his legal representatives were added as respondents 17 to 20, and on the death of the 3rd plaintiff - M. Thimma Reddy - his legal representatives were added as respondents 21 to 28. That apart, the responden