The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for reference under Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC would not be maintainable if the decree in the suit or appeal is subject to appeal.

Headnote:
Reference - Civil Revision Petition - Sec. 113, Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC and held that the application for reference would not be maintainable if the decree in the suit or appeal is subject to appeal. The court referred to case laws to support its interpretation and concluded that the impugned order holding the application for reference 'not maintainable' is legal and valid.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order passed by the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application for reference under Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC would not be maintainable if the decree in the suit or appeal is subject to appeal. It also concluded that the orders of the court in previous proceedings had attained finality and there was no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the application for reference under Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC and the finality of previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sec. 113 r/w Order 46 Rule 1 of CPC and the application of case laws to determine the maintainability of the reference application.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the court, and no order as to costs was made. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were also ordered to stand closed.

JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Smt.M.V.Ramana Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"The Hon'ble Court may be pleased a) to allow the Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.Nil/2023 (unnumbered) in O.S.No.195 of 2015 dtd. 21/9/2023; b) to direct the principal District Judge, Rajahmundry to dispose of the application in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to this petitioner; c) Issue further appropriate directions as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property, subject matter of suit, from respondent No.2 - Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation for valid consideration. But the transfer deed was not executed, so the suit was filed against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 14/9/2015. The suit was decreed exparte against respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 11/3/2016. The 2nd respondent filed an application I.A.No.1406 of 2016 to set aside the ex-parte decree which was allowed and the ex-parte decree was set aside by the learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District vide judgment dtd. 26/11/2017. Against this order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3075 of 2017 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 14/3/2022. This Court observed that it is needless to observe that the written statement, if filed by the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein), the same may be considered in accordance with law.

5. In O.S.No.195 of 2015, the present respondent No.3 and 4 filed an application I.A.No.1347 of 2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC for their impleadment which was rejected by an order, dtd. 21/8/2019 and challenging the said order, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed C.R.P.No.3112 of 2019 which was allowed by this Court, vide order dtd. 1/3/2021 permitting them to contest the suit as defendant Nos.3 and 4 with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in O.S.No.195 of 2015 the petitioner filed an application I.A.No.Nil of 2023 (unnumbered) under Sec. 151 R/w. Order 46 Rule 1 of C.P.C., with the following prayer:

"For the reasons mentioned in the above said affidavit the petitioner prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to provide clarification of question of law, whether order in CRP.No.3112 of 2019 permits re-opening of the decree against 1st defendant, (ii) whether in a suit for specific performance against 1st defendant, after decree dtd. 14/06/2016 defendants 3 and 4 could be added to decreed suit, (iii) what is the effect of direction in CRP.No.3112/2019 after decree in suit on 14/06/2019 against 1st defendant in the interest of justice."

7. Order 46 Rule 1 CPC is in respect of Sec. 113 CPC which provides for making reference. So the petitioner prayed for making reference on the points as prayed in his application as quoted above.

8. On the aforesaid application, learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, passed the following order dtd. 21/9/2023:

"Record is clear and no such reference is required and the petition is not maintainable. Hence, returned."

9. Challenging the order dtd. 21/9/2023, the C.R.P was presented in the Registry of this Court.

10. The Registry returned the C.R.P.(SR).No.42397 of 2023, with the following objections:

"Please clarify and state as to how this CRP(SR) is entertainable against the office objection i.e., mere office objection of the Court below is not a ground to file the CRP in this Hon'ble High Court."

11. The CRP(SR) was resubmitted by learned counsel for the petiti