THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.156 of 2023

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 18.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.1579 of 2013 in O.S.No.90 of 2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 1083 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them was dismissed.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the defendant/deceased petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract against the petitioner No.1, who is the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5, in respect of Ac.1.00 Guntas of agricultural land situated at Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. As the petitioner No.1 remained ex parte in the suit, the Court below passed an ex parte decree on 14.06.2010 against the petitioner No.1. Thereafter the petitioners, filed an application in I.A.No.1579 of 2013 in O.S.No.90 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte decree, duly narrating the reasons for delay, but the Court below refused to condone the delay.

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

3. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, Learned Senior Counsel for Sri Nambi Krishna, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed by the Respondent No.1 in the year 2010 and at that point of time the defendant/petitioner No.1 was bed-ridden and he died on 25.07.2010 and during his life time he has not received summons in the suit, but the ex parte decree was passed on 14.06.2010. The petitioners 2 to 6 are the sons of the deceased petitioner No.1 and they came to know about the passing of ex parte decree only after receiving notice in E.P.No.195 of 2012.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving summons in the E.P. and on verification, the petitioners came to know that the respondent had forged and fabricated the agreement of sale as if the same has been executed by the deceased-petitioner No.1/defendant on 08.12.2005 in respect of the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.5,25,000/-.

6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased-petitioner No.1 during his life time never informed to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 about the alleged execution of agreement of sale dated 08.12.2005 in favour of the respondent No.1 and there was no necessity to the petitioner No.1 to sell said property. Further, the said agreement of sale is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and penalty and registration. The respondent No.1 by misrepresenting the Court got marked the inadmissible document and obtained ex parte decree.

The decree passed by the Court below is not acceptable for the reason that the extent of land within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property is about 14 Acres and not one Acre and if the sale deed is to be executed within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule, it will affect the rights of several third parties and also right of the petitioners. If the property was delivered, the possession of the respondent No.1 would have reflected in the revenue records, but there are no such entries in the revenue records and the Court below without considering all these facts dismissed the application filed by the petitioners and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner No.1/defendant during his life time executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule land on 08.12.2005, on which the petitioners 2 and 3 signed on the said agreement