Back
2022 Supreme(Telangana) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Chintalapati Krishna Murthy – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Razia Sultana – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1380 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P. Badri Premnath.
The execution of sale deeds during the pendency of a suit does not necessarily require the issuance of notices to the parties involved.
Headnote:
Section 151 - Civil Procedure Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order of the Court below, which held that no notices were required to be given to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 in a suit for perpetual injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that issuing notices to plaintiffs 1 to 5 was unwarranted as they were initially authorized to represent plaintiffs 6 to 10, and the execution of sale deeds did not necessitate the issuance of notices.
Issues: The main issue was whether notices should be issued to plaintiffs 1 to 5 due to the execution of sale deeds in favor of plaintiffs 6 to 10 during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the execution of sale deeds did not require the issuance of notices to plaintiffs 1 to 5, as they were initially authorized to represent plaintiffs 6 to 10, and the transaction during the pendency of the suit was subject to trial.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, but the defendants were allowed to raise their pleas during the trial, and the trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit within six months.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants assailing the orders dated 12.12.2018 in I.A. No. 1051 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1447 of 2003, on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. This application in I.A. No. 1051 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) to direct notices to the original owners who are plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 in the above suit since the vakalat filed on behalf of plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 is extinguished as per Section 202 of Contract Act on execution of registered sale deeds dated 12.02.2004 and 08.08.2007 and pass such other orders.
3. This application filed by the petitioners/defendants was allowed by the Court below with an observation that originally, the suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 represented by plaintiffs 6 to 10 as General Power of Attorney Holder to the plaintiffs 1 to 5. Later, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 sold the property in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10. Thus, the power given come to an end as the plaintiffs 1 to 5 alienated their rights in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10 and the vakalath filed on behalf of plaintiffs 1 to 5 is extinguished under Section 202 of Contract Act. Accordingly, the principal right given by plaintiffs 6 to 10, stands extinguished in view of execution of sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10 by plaintiffs 1 to 5. The petition was allowed. However, the Court felt that it is not necessary to issue notice to plaintiffs 1 to 5.
4. As the trial Court has not issued notices to plaintiffs 1 to 5, feeling aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants to set aside the order impugned in so far as holding that no notices are required to be given to the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 as illegal and without proper exercise of jurisdiction.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
6. The original suit in O.S. No. 1447 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. It appears, during pendency of the suit, plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs No. 6 to 10. In view of the said fact, the defendants have requested this Court to issue summons to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as the contract between plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 is extinguished as per Section 202 of Contract Act and the plaintiffs cannot continue on record as GPA holders as they have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10.
7. Whereas, the contention of the plaintiffs before the trial Court as per the averments in the counter is that, at the time of filing of the suit, an application is filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice and it was allowed. Therefore, it is absolutely not required at this stage to inquire or ascertain as to the continuation or extinguishment of any such contract under Section 202 of Indian Contract Act and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application. The trial Court on careful analysis of the facts of the case, recorded the factum of plaintiffs 1 to 5 executing sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10, but it was felt not necessary to issue notices to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as requested by the defendants. Hence, the Revision Petition filed.
8. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the principles laid by this Court in the case of Siddareddy Venkatanagaraja Reddy vs. Shahamat Ali Khan, AIR 2017 Hyderabad 59 wherein this Court in a different context while dealing with the Power of Attorney Act and Indian Contract Act, held that when a plaintiff was appointed as GPA holder for selling particular property, after selling the property, the GPA gets dissolved, agency of plaintiff would stand terminated.
9. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition
