1. The 1st petitioner in both the Revisions is the plaintiff in O.S. No.1590 of 2012 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent in both the Revisions is the defendant in the said suit.

The suit O.S. No.1590 of 2012

2. The said suit was filed by the 1st petitioner against the respondent for specific performance of contract basing on an agreement of sale dt.14.09.2010 and for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property which is a double storied house bearing Municipal No.16-2-51/C, admeasuring 253.33 sq. yds., at Akbarbagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3. There was a written statement filed in the above suit on behalf of the respondent, which the respondent denies was signed by her through an advocate N.S. Reddy, whom the respondent denied to have engaged as her counsel.

4. In the said written statement there was an admission purported to have been made by the respondent admitting the execution of the said agreement of sale but claiming that she did not receive full consideration as agreed and seeking Rs.2,75,000/- towards balance consideration from the 1st petitioner.

5. The suit was decreed on 30.10.2013 and the 1st petitioner was directed to deposit remaining sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- to the credit of the suit within one month, and on such deposit, the respondent was directed to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, failing which the 1st petitioner was granted liberty to get sale deed executed through process of law. It was further stated that after execution of the sale deed, the 1st petitioner is entitled to get possession of the plaint schedule property.

The E.P. No.230 of 2013

6. E.P. No.230 of 2013 was filed by the 1st petitioner for execution of the above decree and on 10.06.2014, sale deed was executed by the said Court in favour of the 1st petitioner and was registered on 01.09.2014 as document No.3624 of 2014 before the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad.

7. On 11.05.2015, the respondent was dispossessed through Court and possession was delivered to 1st petitioner.

I.A.No.236 of 2015 and E.A.No.178 of 2015 filed by respondent

8. On 15.05.2015, the respondent filed I.A.No.236 of 2015 under Section 151 CPC to set aside the decree dt.30.10.2013 in O.S. No.1590 of 2012 of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On the same day she also filed E.A. No.178 of 2015 under Section 47 of CPC to cancel the registered sale deed Doc. No.3624 of 2014 dt.01.09.2014 and restore possession of the plaint schedule property to her.

9. In both these applications, it is the contention of the respondent that on 11.05.2015, some officials from the Court came to her, showed her the order in E.P. No.230 of 2013 in O.S. No.1590 of 2012 of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and dispossessed her from the suit schedule property; at that time she was unable to understand as to what was transpiring and could not do anything; and that she informed her youngest son about the same and he immediately came from Goa.

10. She contended that on 12.05.2015 she engaged Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, and on verification, she came to know about the filing of the suit, filing of written statement or counter purported to be signed by her, passing of judgment and decree, filing of E.P. No.230 of 2013 etc.,; she stated that she obtained immediately certified copies of all the relevant papers and documents from the Court; and after going through the said papers and documents was astonished to see the fraudulent act done and the forgery of her signatures from time to time.

11. She alleged that the suit filed by the 1st petitioner is vexatious; that she did not personally receive any notice or summons from the Court and she did not engage Sri N.S. Reddy, Advocate as her counsel to represent her. She denied signing vakalathnama or engaging Sri N.S. Reddy and T. Shekar Babu, Advocates or signing written statement and counter affidavits filed in the case and al