(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition before this Honble Court against the Common Order and decree dated 23.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 431 of 2024 in O.S. No. 200 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III Addl., District Judge at Tirupati,

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No.200 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above revision and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order dt. 03.01.2025 in I.A. No. 1/2024 in C.R.P.No. 3200/2024 granted by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice and pass

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tocall for the records and set aside the impugned Common Order and decree dated 23.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 432 of 2024 in O.S. No. 200 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III Addl.District Judge at Tirupati, and to allow the same as prayed for and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No.200 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above revision and pass

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and set aside the impugned Common Order and decree dated 23.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 433 of 2024 in O.S. No. 200 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. District Judge at Tirupati, and to allow the same as prayed for and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased stay all further proceedings in OS No.200 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above revision and pass such)

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and correctness of the common orders passed in I.A.Nos.431,432 & 433 of 2024 in O.S.No.200 of 2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

2. Inasmuch as three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:

                  The respondent nos.1 & 2 filed suit vide O.S.No.200 of 2014 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.11.2011 executed by respondent no.3 in their favour or in the alternative for refund of the earnest money together with interest. Since respondent no.3 executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant no.3, being a proper and necessary party to the suit. Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence and when the suit was at the stage of arguments, the petitioner, who is defendant no.3 in the suit, filed petitions (1) to recall P.W.1 and P.W.3 for further cross-examination (2) permit him to file additional written statement and (3) to reopen the suit for the above said purposes of recalling witnesses and filing additional written statement. The trial Court vide common orders dated 23.10.2024 dismissed the petitions being meritless. Assailing the said dismissal order, these three Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri M.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 in all the civil revision petitions. Respondent no.3 remained ex parte in the main suit itself. In this Civil Revision Petition though respondent no.3 received notice he did neither put of his appearance nor represented by any counsel.

5. Sri M.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the petitions before the trial Court and grounds of the Civil Revision Petitions would contend that since defendant no.1 remained ex parte in the suit and since the plaintiffs deliberately did not file documents in relation to the alienations made by defendant no.1, the defendant no.2, who is an illiterate and who was not advised by his earlier counsel properly, could not file the documents earlier and thus there is no negligence or lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement and recall of witnesses. He would further contend that the contents of the additional written statement and the documents to be filed along with it would demonstrate that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and that of the suit agreement of sale is totally wrong and that defendant no.1 has no right to alienate the property in favour of the plaintiffs with the boundaries mentioned in the suit agreement of sale. He would further contend that since the defendant no.1, who has to bring all the true facts to the notice of the court did not contest the suit and remained ex parte and as the petitioner gained knowledge of the alienations made by defendant no.1 a few days prior to filing of the petitions, the trial court ought not to have dismissed the petitions merely considering the stage of the suit. He would further contend that additional written statement and recall of witnesses would aid proper adjudication of the suit and avoid miscarriage of justice. He would further contend that while dealing with the relief of filing additional written statement, the court should only see that if such additional written statement is not accepted, whether the real controversy between the parties could be decided and whether any injustice or prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is received, however, the court below upon erroneous view of the matter, dismissed the petitions, even though no prejudice would cause to the other side. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

                  In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olympic Industries V. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others((2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 528)

6. On the other hand, Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that in the additional written statement the petitioner sought to introduce a new theory that the suit is bad for non-joinder of purchasers of the property covered under the documents proposed to be filed along with the said additional written statement. He would further contend that the alienations made under the said documents is between defendant no.1 and third parties and the plaintiffs are no way concerned with those sales and further one of the purchasers of the document is shown as a western boundary owner in suit agreement of sale, whereas in the sale deed of the petitioner none of the purchasers under the documents were shown as any of the boundary owners and therefore, the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of the contents of the written statement as well as the new documents sought to be filed, rightly dismissed the petitions. He would further contend that the sale deed relied on by the petitioner clearly mentions execution of gift by defendant no.1 in favour of Panchayat Secretary for formation of the road and therefore, there is no necessity to recall the witnesses to confront the said document. He would further contend that since the petitioner sought to introduce a new theory of non-joinder of parties by filing written statement and sought to confront the witnesses by recalling them with the documents which have no bearing on the controversy involved in the suit, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petitions by a detailed reasoned order and the said order does not require any interference of this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction and the Civil Revision Petitions being meritless deserve dismissal,. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the suit filed for specific performance of agreement to sell executed by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2, the petitioner being purchaser of the property was added as defendant no.3 being a necessary and proper party.

9. When the suit was at the stage of arguments, the petitioner, who was added as defendant no.3 filed the petitions covered under the common order assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions, to reopen the suit, recall P.Ws.1 & 3 and permit him to file additional written statement along with documents.

10. By way of the additional written statement, the petitioner sought to introduce a plea that the suit is hit by non-joinder of purchasers under the documents. The documents sought to be confronted to the witnesses are the alienations made by defendant no.1 in favour of third parties. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the said sales and name of one of the purchasers under those documents is shown as one of the boundary owners of agreement to sale and further none of the purchasers were referred to as owners of any of the boundaries. It is relevant here to note that the revision petitioners did not find any fault of the said observation in these Civil Revision Petitions. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the documents sought to be filed along with the additional written statement are no way connected to the issue involved in the suit. So also, since the gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of Panchayat Secretary is very much referred to in the sale deed of the petitioner, there is no necessity for confronting the said document to the witnesses by recalling them. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly rejected the relief sought for recalling P.W.1 & 3 for the purpose of confrontation of the documents referred to above.

11. Since the alienations made by defendant no.1 in favour of third parties are found no way connected to the facts in issue, filing additional written statement bringing those facts on record would become otiose and inconsequential and would in no way improve the defence of the petitioner in the suit. Since the documents are no way connected to the case, the observations made in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Olympic Industries (supra 1) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the trial Court is right in rejecting the relief sought for filing additional written statement along with documents.

12. In view of the above, the trial Court had viewed the facts of the case in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the petitions and the same does not require any interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petitions being meritless are liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.