THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3467 of 2023

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.86 of 2022 in O.S.No.188 of 2022, dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-defendant No.8, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent No.1 and 2-plaintiffs, respondent Nos.3 to 9 are other respondents-defendants in I.A.No.86 of 2022, which is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint i.e., O.S.No.188 of 2022.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed for rejection of plaint. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that petitioner has specifically pleaded that she is neither a party to the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2011 between respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7, there is no transaction as such and there is no cause of action for respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs to implead and add the petitioner-defendant No.8 in the suit.

3.2. Learned trial Court erred in rejecting the petition on the ground that the respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendant Nos.1 to 7 and petitioner herein are taking steps to compromise the earlier suit in O.S.No.666 of 2011 to defraud the rights of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs which is not sufficient to constitute any cause of action against the petitioner herein in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

3.3. Learned trial Court has erred that the contentions raised thereon are mixed question of fact and law, hence, they cannot be decided at this stage even though there are no specific pleadings by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs, admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the alleged agreement of sale and the suit itself is not maintainable against the petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Notices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are served.

None appears for them.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

6.1 Respondent No.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.05.2011 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-32 guntas in different survey numbers with specific boundaries.

6.2 It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.3 to 9- defendant Nos.1 to 7 came forward to sell the suit schedule property and the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for Ac.4-32 guntas. Accordingly, an agreement of sale is executed on 12.05.2011. The total sale consideration for the entire property is Rs.48,00,000/-. In total, respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.44,50,000/- to respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 on different dates and the leftover amount is Rs.3,50,000/-.

6.3 Plaint paragraph No.7 goes to show that the petitioner- defendant No.8 has filed civil suit vide O.S.No.666 of 2011 against respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further averred that the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 to 9 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 in order to defraud the rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs are taking speedy efforts to compromise the suit in O.S.No.666 of 2011 and planning to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, which the plaintiffs came to know recently as