THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.768 OF 2024

O R D E R :

Aggrieved by order dated 19.02.2024 in I.A.No.754 of

2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gummalla Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Revision petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vikarabad. Suit is filed by respondent/plaintiff, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.04.2018. Agreement of sale is for agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8-36 gts. situated in Sy.No.224/అ (Ac.05-15 gts) and Sy.No.225/అ (Ac.03.21 gts) of Bantwaram Village and Mandal, erstwhile Ranga Reddy District, present Vikarabad District.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that an application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C per se casts responsibility on the Court below to recast an issue at any point of time of the suit and that the Court below has erred in not recasting the issue No.iv. It is further submitted that issue No.iv is to be re-casted as prayed for in the I.A.No.754 of 2023. It is also submitted that external factors should not influence the outcome of the order of the Court below and in the interest of justice, issue No.iv be re-casted.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent that the relief sought for to recast issue No.iv is misconceived as the same is implicit in issue Nos.i and ii. It is further submitted that neither there is any need nor necessity for recasting issue No.iv as the suit is filed for specific performance and damages and issue No.iv pertains to the main prayer i.e., for damages.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. The revision petitioner has come up with the said Interlocutory Application when PW1 was partly cross-examined and matter was posted for further cross-examination. It is evident from the record that I.A.No.754 of 2023 came to be filed and the matter was adjourned from time to time and the petitioner kept changing counsels from time to time and the present counsel came on record on 21.08.2023, paragraph No.13 of the order indicates the list of dates. A perusal of the record, the adjournment dates mentioned in the order fortify the fact that the petitioner is employing delaying tactics and dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. 7. It is pertinent to take note of the facts recorded in paragraph No.11 of the order. Petitioner addressed a personal (show cause notice) letter dated 01.03.2019 demanding the Court to show cause why damages of Rs.100,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Crores only) be not claimed from the Court and why the Presiding Officer of the Court be not prosecuted on charges for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 177, 217, 218, 220, 420, 419, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, for not enclosing the copies of the plaint and other documents, along with the summons received by her in the suit. This Court is inclined to take a serious view of the conduct of the revision petitioner and strongly deprecates the addressing of such a letter, by no stretch of imagination can such action be countenanced, the revision petitioner has conducted in a way which cannot be condoned. This Court would have imposed exemplary costs but restrains to do so as the counsel on behalf of revision petitioner submitted his apologies to the Court.

8. This court has perused the issues framed by the Court below which are as follows:

"i) Whether the agreements of sale dated 07-04-2018 are unenforceable as contended by the defendant?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule 'A' to C' properties in favour of plaintiff as per the agreement