ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S. No.5432/2021 by which an application (I.A. No.6) filed by him under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) was rejected.

2. The petitioner herein was the defendant No.1 while the respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff in O.S.No.5432/2021.

3. The suit in O.S. No.5432/2021 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein contending that she was the owner of a property bearing municipal No.98 situate at Ward No.72, Division No.67 of Civil Station, Domlur II Stage, Bengaluru. She claimed that the aforesaid property was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in favour of Mr.D. Krishnappa. She claimed that the BDA approved a construction plan and a conditional deed of sale was executed on 19.10.1989 in favour of Mr. D. Krishnappa who executed a general power of attorney dated 26.12.1990 in favour of Mr.Vincent authorizing him to encumber the suit property and also executed an agreement of sale in favour of Mr.L.Vincent on the same day after receiving a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. She claimed that Mr. L. Vincent sold the property in her favour on 01.02.1997. She contended that Mr. Vincent was sick and was in dire need of funds for his treatment. Therefore, he obtained loan from his friends, namely, Mr.Ananda Kumar and Mr.Mohammad Sharief. The respondent No.1 claimed that Mr.Ananda Kumar and Mr.Mohammad Sharief hatched a plot by insisting to execute a document as security for the hand loan of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Consequently, a sale deed dated 29.10.1998 was executed by the respondent No.1 where the sale consideration was shown as Rs.5,00,000/- though the market value of the property was in several crores. On the same day, an agreement to reconvey the suit property was executed by Mr. Ananda Kumar and Mr. Mohammad Sharief in favour of the respondent No.1. She claimed that a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- was paid in full and final discharge of the loan and interest and the last of the payment was made on 17.09.2005. However, the said Mr.Ananda Kumar and Mr.Mohammad Sharief instead of re-conveying the suit property, brought about an illegal sale deed on 17.01.2006 in favour of Mr.Shaik Abdul Hameed, Mrs. Hajira Khanam, Mr.Abdul Majeed Siddique, Mr.Abdul Waheed Farooq, Mr.Yaseer Abdul Hamid and Mr.Abdul Azeez Sabir. The said Mr. Shaikh Abdul Hameed and others sold the property to the petitioner who filed O.S.No.8593/2012 against Mr. N. Shivaprasad, Sri N. Rajesh and Sri. B.R. Dhanalakshmi for recovery of possession. The said suit was compromised and in execution of this decree, the respondent No.1 who was not a party in O.S.No.8593/2012 was dispossessed. The respondent No.1 therefore sought the following reliefs in the suit:-

a. declare that the judgment in O.S.No.8593/2012 rendered by the Hon’ble Bengaluru has been obtained by fraud and in collusion with Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 in that case by the Defendants, the same is not binding on this Plaintiff.

b. declare that the consequential execution proceedings in E.X.No.1139/2019 rendered by the Hon’ble X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH – 26, Bengaluru City at Bengaluru has been obtained by fraud and in collusion with Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 in that case by the Defendant and the same is not binding on this Plaintiff.

c. declare that the said decree is not binding on the plaint schedule property.

d. Restore possession of the Plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property.

e. Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant either by itself or through its agents, Authorised officers, the 2nd Defendant, being its Receiver and Manager or such other Receiver and Manager that it may purport to appoint or any of them, servants, auctioneers, agents, or advocates or any of them or otherwise from advertising or o