TMD,J vs Kosuru Kaikammaa and in the case of Pushpaben

...Petitioners/Defendants No. 8 & 9 AND '1. Raparthi Pandu @ Pandaiah, S/o. Lachaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Rtd. Employee, R/o. Suryapet Town and District, (Since deceased)

2. Raparthi Vajramma, W/o. Late Pandu @ Pandaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occp. Household, Rio. H.No.'l-1-921A, Thallagadda Area, Suryapet Town and District.

3. Raparthi Ramesh, S/o. Late Pandu @ Pandaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-1-'183/8, J.J.Nagar, Suryapet Town and District. 4. Maragani Susheela, Wo. Ravi Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo. 1-1-11911116, Thallagadda Area, Suryapet Town and District.

5. Raparthi Ravi, S/o. Late Pandu @ Pandaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H.No.'1-1-92lA, Thallagadda Area, Suryapet Town and District. . ...Respondents/Petitioners No. I to S/Plaintiffs

6. Gopagani Saidulu, S/o. Venkatesham (Since deceased) a"

7. Gopagani t3ixap alhy @ Bixam, S/o. Sydulu, Aged about 5{ years, Occ. H.No.2- i-16BlStA-, Main Road ihallagadda Linemen in AP fransco, -R/o. Area, Suryapet I own and District. B. Gopagani N_agaiah, S/o. Sydulu, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Ag riculture, R/o. Kudakuda Villag,: Chiwemla lVlandal.

9. Gopagani Srinivas @ S1!nu, S/o. Sydulu, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculture Rlo. 1-1-112, Thallagadda Area, Suryapet l-own :rnc District. '10. Pishika Veeraiai , S/o. Vishwanatham, Aged about 55 years O:c. Advocate, R/o. Suryapet Tcvrn and District.

11. Gopagani Bhag l,amma @ deceased). P. Bhagyamma, Wo Raiaslrekar (Since '12. Gopagani Housewife, deceased) l-ingarrma. Wo. Late Sydulu, Aged R/o H No.1-'1-112, Thalligadda Area, aLrout ,/8 years, Occ. Suryapr:t Town (Since 13 Poloju Shravan f!:ma1 S{o Late Rajashekara Chary, AgerJ abrrut 23 years, R/o. H.No 1- 1-44t?-/1, fhahgadda Locality, Suryapet Tow:n ilnd l)istrict.' ...Respondents/Defendants No. 1 to 7 & 10 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Ser;tion 15'1 cPC praying that in the circumstanr;es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court miry be ple ased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the pet tioners i r o.s.No. 37 of 2009 on the file r:f the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Se,c;tion 151 CPC praying that in the cir,;umstan,;es stated in the affidavit filed ir su:port of the petition, the High Court may b< pleased to extend the interim ordr:' dated 27 tO912024 passed in CRF, No. 3035 of 2024, pending disposal of the nrain CRp. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. Koya prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,3 4 & S: Mr. B. Arjun The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI c.R.P.NO. 3065 0F 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated Ol.Oa.2O24 in I.A.No. 163 12O24 in O.S.No.37l2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale a_nd the plaintiff No.l has filed the suit on the ground that the defendants have entered into an agreement of sale with him and afso with defendant No.5 and had received the sale consideration, but refused to honour the same by executing the sale deed. It was stated in the suit that the defendant No.S was not interested to join him as plaintiff and therefore, he has made him as a defendant in the suit. The defendant No.5 remained ex-parte. The other contesting defendants have filed their written statement. Thereafter the petitioner has f ed l.A.No,163 of la ZOZ+ seeking to summon the defendant No.5 to give evidence I ) 2 TMD,J CRP.No. :tO65 of 2024 in the suit to clicit the truth about the execution ol ag: eement of sa1e. The c.t:fendants No.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 lLave obj':cted to the sam r: ancl submitted that the Court cannot conipei the defendarit Nr.5 to appear before the Court. It is su bmitted that the cleftrndant No.S has chosen to remarn e.x pzrte ald therefore , tlLe Court has to draw adverse inferen ce, but should not srmmon the defendant No.S to give evid-^n:e.

3. In support of his contentions, the learnr:d counsel for the petiticners place reliance Lrpon the ju'lgmentrs of this Court in Lo'7ola Public School Society, Secunde'rabad Vs. P.Anil Kumar and Othersl and also in the ctrse of B Venkat Ram Reddy Vs. K.Srinivas and Others2.

4. Lcarned counsel for the respondents ltowever, submittecl [1at the defendant No.5 has e:-rter:cl into agreement oI sale along with the plaintiffs and ther'-'fc re, he is a proper rlnd necessary party to give evidence and accordin gly, he had rightly been called/ surnmon ed by the Court lo gir: evidence. In support of his conrentions, he placed reliarL,:e upon the decisions of this Court in th: case of National fn:;urance Co.Ltd., and Others Vs. M/s.Srrsru Sea 1 2oo8 (1)Ar.D 8 2 zoos 121 nl.n z:: 3 TMD,J c.F.P.No- 3065 of 2024 Foods3 and also in the case of Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikammaa and in the case of Pushpaben Champaklal Shah and Another Vs. Rikhadev Tirthram Sharma and Otherss.

5. Having regard to tlle rival contentions and the material on record, this Court hnds that the petition has been hled under Order XVI Rule 12 r/w 151 C.p.C. However, the said provision relates to uprocedure if witness fails to appear,. In this case, the above stage has not yet arrived. The appropriate provision is Rule 7A which reads as under: The Court mdg, on the application o;f ang partg for the issue of a surrrrmons Jor the dttend.dl.lce oJ ang person, pennit s-uch partg to efJect seraice oJ such sumrzrofls on such pe"son and. shall, in such (L c.rse, deliuer the summons to such partg for senrice.

6. From the literal reading of the above, it is clear that the plaintiffs also can seek issuance of summons to defendant No.S, who remained ex_parte in spite of service of notice. The trial Court has accordingly allowed the same. 3 2oos (l) APLJ. 7l(Hc) a 1999 SCC online AP 63s 5 2005 ssc onLnc Guj tgo 1 I L l 4 TMD'J CP.P.No. 31165 of 2024

7. Trc judgments relied upon by the learrred rounsel for the petitic ners are distinguishable on fac ts zrrLd further even in those judgments it was held that even if tkLe witness summoned is unwilling to give evidence on behall of the piaintiffs, he rralt be examined as a Court witnt:ss'

8. Il view of the same, this Court dces nc't ind any merit ilt th,r; Civil Revision Petition and s liabl I to be dismisse d. g. lt':cordingly, this Civil Revisic'n Pet tion is dismisserd. 'ItLere shall be no order as to costs' 1C. lvliscellaneous petitions, if any, penrlinp in this Cirril Rerdsior Petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL ISTAIIT REGISTRAR SE(;TION OFFICER $ 1 AS i, I .-, l I The Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet One CC :o Sri Koya Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to tv1- B. Arjun, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPi:s To,

3. 4. DL/plp I /1 i I i I I 1 i I I I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:27102120'25 ORDER CRP.No.3065 ot 2024 DISM]SSING THE C.R.P. Rs 0( *" \ rl- --a::'a a-.- '"' -'- k} s-:v "ff,j ..,.v s"\ .,,' , .. i :i' I rl' l,? \,; \:.:r.. 't,-J 111 l, ' '1;: '\--,=.--- \ N I i ;) C- ,,i i ',/