ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel Sri Sk.Ahmed Shareef for the petitioners in all the revision petitions, the learned counsel Sri R.A.Achuthanand for respondents 1 and 2 in CRP No.866 of 2023, learned counsel Sri Vivek Jain for the respondent no.1 in CRP No.869 and for respondents 1 and 2 in CRP No.913 of 2023 and the learned counsel Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal for respondent No.1 in CRP No.874 of 2013.

2. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suits.

3. O.S.Nos.83, 81, 112 and 80 of 2015 are filed by the prospective purchasers of individual apartments in Apartment building called as ‘Casa Rosa’. The 1st defendant in all the suits is the Developer of the property bearing Municipal No.6-1-289, Road No.5, Padmarao Nagar, Main Road, Secunderabad. The plaintiffs have instituted the above suits praying to grant decree of specific performance of the agreements of sale by directing the defendants to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule apartments. Though appearance was entered by the 1st defendant, he did not file the written statements and the 1st defendant was set ex parte. Trial was conducted and after hearing the arguments of parties appearing before the trial Court, learned trial Judge reserved the suits for judgments by fixing the date of delivery of judgments as 28.06.2023.

4. First defendant filed I.As. in all the suits under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying the Court to set aside the orders setting him ex parte dated 04.12.2018 (O.S.No.83 2015 & O.S.No.81 of 2015), dated 20.06.2018 (O.S.No.112 of 2015) and dated 31.01.2018 (O.S.No.80 of 2015) and permit him to file written statements. On 07.06.2022 trial Court passed orders dismissing the applications. Challenging the same, these Revisions are filed.

5. Learned counsel for 1st defendant contended that due to wrong advice and wrong prosecution by the learned counsel engaged by the 1st defendant, 1st defendant could not file the written statements and could not appear during the course of conducting trial. When the 1st defendant came to know that the counsel on record was not contesting the suits and the matters were at the stage of submission of arguments, immediately applications were filed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC praying to permit the 1st defendant to file written statements and to participate in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, though he sought larger reliefs before the trial Court in the individual I.As., filed by the 1st defendant, he is now confining himself for submission of written arguments only and that may be permitted.

6. In support of the contention that the Applications under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC are validly filed and that the trial Court erred in not accepting the pleas raised by the 1st defendant, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, (1955) 2 SCR 1 : AIR 1955 SC 425;

ii) Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619;

iii) Om Prakash vs. Amarjit Singh and another, 1988 (Supp) SCC 780;

iv) Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others, (1964) 5 SCR 946 : AIR 1964 SC 993

7. According to the learned counsel, when the applications were filed, arguments were not concluded and, therefore, trial Court grossly erred in not permitting the 1st defendant to prosecute the suits further.

8. Per contra, according to the learned counsel Sri R.A.Achuthanand, the matter is now stands at the stage of rendering judgments after the cases was heard and reserved for judgments and, therefore, Order IX Rule 7 of CPC has no application. He also referred to the provisions in Orders XVIII and XX of CPC to contend that as the matter is at the stage of rendering judgment, it is not permissible to reopen the suits and to permit the 1st defendant to file written statements and that no further proceedings are pending for the 1st defendant to file written