The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applications filed by the petitioners were misconceived and misdirected, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi to raise objections. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file fresh civil suits for their grievances.

ORDER :

1. By way of these two revision petitions, preferred under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitioners have challenged the impugned Orders dated 25.08.2022, passed in Civil Misc. Applications No.18/2022 & 17/2022 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi (Rajasthan), dismissing their two separate applications filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Since the points involved in both revision petitions are substantially similar and petitioners & respondents No.1 are same parties, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-decree holder has put in appearance as caveator.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused the impugned orders and material placed before this Court.

3. The relevant facts for deciding these petitions, in nut shell, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted two separate civil suits for specific performance of two agreements dated 30.8.1991 against other respondents No.2 & 3. Both agreements were executed solely in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. In civil suit No.23/2000, plaintiff averred in para Nos. 2, 5 & 6 of the plaint that defendants agreed to sale their 2/3 share in agricultural lands of khasra No.63, at Village Ren, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, to plaintiff and other 8 persons, however, agreement has been executed in name of plaintiff alone and later on, after payment of substantive amount against agreed sale consideration, in furtherance to the agreement to sale dated 30.8.1991, defendants delivered possession of 278 Bighas agricultural land to plaintiff on 31.1.1992 and since then plaintiff and other eight persons, named in schedule ‘B’ appended with plaint have been in continuous cultivatory possession. In the Schedule ‘B’, appended with plaint, names of nine persons including plaintiff- Raghuveer Singh and both petitioners Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar are mentioned. It was averred that land was agreed to be purchased jointly by plaintiff and other eight persons. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that, in pursuance of agreement in question, sale deed(s) was/ were to be executed and registered in the name of plaintiff and other eight persons jointly or severally according to instructions of plaintiff and prayer was made in the plaint in the similar tune. This civil suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff vide judgment dated 16.1.2004 in the following terms:

^^vr% oknh dk Áfroknhx.k ds fo#) vuqcU/k dh fof'k"B vuqikyuk dk okn bl Ádkj lO;; fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh vuqcU/k Án'kZ&1 ds ÁfrQy dh 'ks"k jkf'k 444500$355000 dqy 799500 #i;s vkSj LVkEi vkSj jftLVªh [kpZ dh jkf'k Áfroknhx.k dks Hkqxrku djus ij vFkok U;k;ky; esa tek djokus ij Áfroknhx.k xzke js.k rglhy fgUMksyh esa fofLFkr [krkSuh la[;k 63 ds vius fgLls dh 2@3 Hkkx dh 278 ch?kk d`f"k Hkwfe ftldk fooj.k okni= ds lkFk layxUu ifjf'k"B ^^v** esa vafdr gS oknh ,oa oknh }kjk funsZf'kr 8 vU; O;fDr;ksa ftudk mYys[k ifjf'k"B ^^c** esa vafdr gS ds i{k esa 'kkeykrh rkSj ij ;k oknh }kjk fn;s funsZ'k ds vuqlkj vyx vuqcU/k&1 dh fof'k"B vuqikyuk djrs gq, nks ekg esa foØ; i= iathd`r djok nsA Áfroknhx.k }kjk ,slk ugha djus ij oknh bl U;k;y; ds ek/;e ls mDr Hkwfe dk foØ; i= iathd`r djokus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA vkKfIr fufeZr gksA**

4. In Civil Suit No.22/2000, plaintiff averred that defendant No.1 through his power of attorney holder defendant No.2, agreed to sale his Khatedari land of 46 Bighas 19 Biswas at village Ren, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi to plaintiff and executed agreement dated 30.8.1991, after receiving part of sale consideration and later, on payment of substantive sale consideration, possession of land was delivered to plaintiff on 31.01.1992, which is in continuous possession of plaintiff. In this suit, there is no reference of persons other than plaintiff in whose favour sale deed was to be executed, however, in the Court statements of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh (Pw.1), recorded on