ORDER:

Plaintiff in this suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.438 of 2022 in O.S.No.747 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.747 of 2020 against the defendant No.1 and 2 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale.

3. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he acquired the same through partition deed dated 25.11.2000; that the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed and mutated the name of the 1st defendant; that defendant No.1 is the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff; that defendant No.1 being a retired bank manager settled at Bangalore and he is unable to cultivate the landed properties; that plaintiff and his family members are cultivating the landed properties of the defendant No.1 since twenty years; that defendant No.1 offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff and he accepted for the same; that the sale price was fixed at Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only); that the plaintiff paid advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on 03.12.2019 to defendant No.1; that after receiving advance sale consideration, defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale on 03.12.2019; that balance of consideration is to be paid within one year i.e., on or before

02.12.2020; that 1st defendant handed over Xerox copy of partition deed, pattadar pass book and pass book extract; that plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract and postponing the same; that plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 is trying to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 or third parties and hence filed the suit for specific performance.

4. 2nd defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that he purchased item No.2 of suit schedule property from the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 18.11.2020 for valid consideration; that his father T.Ramachandra purchased other items of the suit schedule property from the 1st defendant dated 18.11.2020 for valid consideration and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties; that plaintiff was also there in Sub-register office, B.Palem on the date of said purchase; that alleged suit agreement of sale dated 03.12.2019 is antedated by forging the 1st defendant’s signature and he thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. Pending suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.438 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose of noting down the existing physical features in the plaint schedule property and also to note down the existing underground pipelines connected to Well belongs to Tulasi and to the land of 1st defendant etc.

6. In the affidavit in support of the petition while reiterating the contentions in the plaint, it was further contended that the plaintiff has been cultivating the land since twenty (20) years with the help of borewell situated in the lands of Tulasi who is no other than his paternal uncle and brother of 1st defendant; that he also laid underground pipeline from the said borewell to his landed properties; and the property of the 1st defendant merged together and there are no ridges in between his land and land of 1st defendant and hence filed the application.

7. 2nd defendant filed counter opposing the application filed by the plaintiff contending that earlier plaintiff keep on filing applications to drag the proceedings, in fact, he also filed I.A.Nos.273 of 2021 and 274 of 2021 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Trial Court by order dated 10.08.2022 dismissed the interlocutory application.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

10. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the re