Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
In these Civil Revision Petitions, common question of law and facts are involved, and parties are also common, hence they are being
disposed of by this common order. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by orders dated 04-06-2012 passed in I.A.No.2708 of 2011 in O.S.No.173 and I.A.No.160 of 2010 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 both on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (I.As). The petitioners herein are also the petitioners in the I.As. and second defendant in the suits whereas the respondents herein are also the respondents in the I.As. and plaintiffs and first defendant in the suits respectively. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the suits. The plaintiffs filed the suits against the defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30-07-2001 claimed to be executed by the first plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. The second defendant filed the I.As. seeking the permission of the Court to receive his written statements in the suits.
Initially the first defendant filed written statements which were adopted by the second defendant in the suits whereas the second defendant filed the written statements in question which are similar to the written statements filed by the first respondent on the ground that in order to protect his rights individually and to amplify what was stated by the first defendant, they were necessary. He also claimed that he engaged an Advocate following which he was advised to file the written statement for himself. It is also pleaded on his behalf that in addition to the pleas taken in the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has to take a specific plea with regards to the question of damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the I.A. It is observed by the Court below that the defendants being wife and husband are living together and pursuing the litigation together and in fact the second defendant is prosecuting the litigation on their behalf.
Operative part
It is not the case of the second defendant that there is any conflict of interest between himself and the first defendant. In the affidavit filed by the second defendant he has not pleaded specifically about his defence intended to be taken or about any inconsistency about the defence taken by the first defendant. Thereby there is no reason to allow the plea of the second defendant. Heard. The second defendant adopted the written statements filed by the first defendant. It is not his specific claim that his defence in fact is inconsistent with the defence taken in the written statements filed by the first defendant nor he has to take additional grounds for one reason or other in that behalf. He has got liberty to take all the defences taken in the written statements of the first defendant for his benefit also. The Court below appreciated the matter in right perspective. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequent upon the dismissal of the C.R.Ps, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:19-12-2012 YCR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 19 Dec 2012. The bench was G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.