ORDER :

This revision petition is filed against the order dated

20-01-2020 dismissing I.A. No.682 of 2019 in O.S.88 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed under Order VIII Rule 6 r/w Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC rising a counter-claim for recovery of a total amount of Rs.8,55,800/-.

2. The parties are read as plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of convenience.

3. The facts leading to filing to this revision petition are as follows :-

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,39,436/- with interest @ 12% p.a., thereon from the date of decree till the date of realization and costs of the suit, on the ground that as per the development agreement entered into between the plaintiff with others and the defendant who a builder, the share of the property after development is agreed to be 60% : 40% for builder and the owners respectively. However, it is further an understanding between the owners and the builder that the owners shall be compensated by money @ Rs.2,600/- per square feet to the extent of area falls short, since the builder allotted only 2316 Contd., square feet out of the agreed total area of 2658.86 square feet for Flats No.208 and 303 to the plaintiff and similarly to other owners. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff Rs.8,91,436/- @ Rs.2600/- per square feet to an extent of 342.86 square feet. Further, the plaintiff claimed that the builder has to hand over the share of the plaintiff within the stipulated time, including the grace period and if he fails to do so, the defendant shall pay damages @ Rs.4000/- per month for each flat for a continuous period of six months and if the defendant fails to complete the construction even beyond that total period, the GPA shall be cancelled. Thus, the defendant shall pay Rs.48,000/- towards damages as he could not fulfill the agreed terms, as on 14-08-2016 by which the grace period of three months and extended period of six months was completed. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.9,39,436/- (Rs.8,91,436/- + Rs.48,000/-) for the recovery of which the suit was filed.

4 a. The defendant filed written statement denying the short fall of the extent of the property developed and allotted to the plaintiff. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff’s brother who used to represent the plaintiff, and site owners used to say that their properties were purely own, except the education loan of the plaintiff’s son from the Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar Branch, Hyderabad and the plaintiff requested the defendants managing partner to discharge the said loan on the promise that the same would be repaid subsequently with 24% interest to the defendant at the time of handing over possession of her respective flats by the defendant and thus, the managing partner by name K.K.Tataji gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 20-11-2011 with it the plaintiff discharged her son’s educational loan and handed over the certificate issued by the Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar Branch, Hyderabad to K.K.Tataji and thus, the defendant proceeded with the development agreement as if the property is free from any kind of encumbrances, but surprisingly, after the development agreement was registered, K.K.Tataji came to know that the plaintiff’s mother and brother by name Prasunamba and K.Srinivasa Rao mortgaged the same property in favour of the State Bank of India, Tenali and the said property was being put to sale under auction for failing to discharge the mortgage debt. The defendant further came to know that the same property was also mortgaged with Tenali Co-operative Urban Bank and failed to discharge the said debt also. Therefore, when the defendant questioned the brother of the plaintiff as to why he misrepresented at the time of entering into the development agreement, the brother of the plaintiff requested K.K.Tataji to discharge the said loan amounts. Initially K.K.Tataji did not agreed for the