Pleadings cannot be construed as a statute.

1. The Common Order, dated 17-04-2014, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 in OS.No.924 of 2006 is the subject matter of these three Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The petitioner- firm filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Pending the suit, it filed IA.No.514 of 2004 for reopening the evidence of PW.1, IA.No.515 of 2004 for recalling PW.1 for further examination and IA.No.516 of 2014 for receiving additional evidence. These three applications having been dismissed, the petitioner filed these three Civil Revision Petitions against IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 respectively.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision Petitions are stated hereunder:

The petitioner/plaintiff entered into a series of agreement of sale with all or some of the defendants, who are respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions. While the respondents have executed some registered sale deeds, they refused to execute the same in respect of the suit agreement of sale. The suit agreement of sale was, admittedly, entered into by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and they were not signed by respondent Nos.3 and 5. It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the sons and respondent No.4 is the daughter of respondent No.5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that all the respondents have agreed to sell the suit schedule property; that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 alone have signed the agreement of sale as respondent Nos.3 and 5 were not available on the date of execution of the suit agreement of sale and; that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have agreed to take the responsibility of getting the said document signed by respondent Nos.3 and 5, which fact was also specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale itself. The petitioner also specifically pleaded that, having received the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,72,60,000/-, the respondents executed some sale deeds and failed to execute the same in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.41-29 guntas.

4. Respondent No.5 filed a separate written statement wherein she has inter alia stated that the suit schedule properties being ancestral properties, her children i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein have no right to enter into any transaction in respect of her share and that as she has not signed the suit agreement of sale, the question of specific performance thereof by her does not arise. Respondent No.5 has filed her evidence in lieu of chief examination as DW.3. She was cross-examined on 30-01-2014 by the Counsel for the petitioner. In her cross- examination, she has stated as under:

5. I am not aware of the transaction covered by Ex.A.1. It is not true to say that I have obtained Rs.25 lakhs through cheques and the same was encashed by me.

6. On 19-03-2014, the petitioner filed the abovementioned IAs. In the affidavit filed in support of the said applications, it is specifically averred that during the cross-examination of DW.3, on 30-01-2014, she has denied the receipt of Rs.25 lakhs from the petitioner through cheques drawn from two Banks viz., M/s. Devi Gayatri Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Kukatpalli Branch (formerly G P R Cooperative Urban Bank Limited) and I D B I Bank, Basheerbagh Branch. It is further averred that the petitioner has obtained Certificates and extracts of pass books of respondent No.3s account, from both the aforesaid Banks, which clearly prove the payments and also the transactions made between the parties, and that those documents are very much essential to prove that respondent No.3 has received amount from the petitioner.

7. In Paragraph 8 of the impugned Order, the lower Court observed that it appears from the documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid to respondent No.5. The Court below, however, framed a question as to whether these documents are relevant to decide the issues framed by the Cour