THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1670 of 2007 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by th third defendant in O.S.No.506 of 1998 on the file the Principal Junior Civ Judge, Kovvur. Respondents 2 and 3 herein had filed O.S.No.506 of 1998 fo cancellation of the decree and the delivery proceedings ordered i O.S.No.777 of 1988 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Cour Kovvur, which is a suit filed by the first respondent herein (the firs defendant O.S.No.506 of 1998) against respondents 2 and 3 herein (the plaintiffs in O.S.No.506 of 1998 and defendants i O.S.No.777 of 1988), and for a consequential and ancillary relief o permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with th peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by th plaintiff and tenth defendant. The revision petitioner as the third defendant filed the writte statement, which to the extent relevant in material, reads as follows: “The 1st plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property under a conditional sale dt.28.3.1989 for Rs.27,300/- and she received the same form Sri Shaik Masthan who is the husband of this defendant. Subsequently, as the 1st plaintiff did not repay the amount and the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for cancellation of the said conditional sale deed as per the terms of the same, the husband of this defendant became the owner of the schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and 1st defendant collusively brought into existence a sale agreement dt.13.9.1985 which is a collusive sale agreement and basing on that the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.777/88. The interests of the defendants have to be protected. However, the defendants 3 to 7 also filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of course, which was dismissed for default. The defendants 3 to 7 are also taking specific steps in that suit for its restoration. The plaintiffs’ contention that they have paid back the amounts to the husband of this defendant and the defendants 3 to 7 have nothing to do with the schedule property etc., are all false. The plaintiffs never paid any amount and they never taken any steps for cancellation of the conditional sale deed. So, the defendants 3 to 7 have got an interest in the schedule property and they have to be declared as owners. The suit O.S.No.777/88 is a collusive suit and the delivery in that suit is a paper delivery.” Issues were settled and the issues that were framed pertain t whether the suit summons in O.S.No.777 of 1988 were not served on th defendants therein?; whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.777 of 1988 hav played fraud on the Court and obtained an ex parte decree and manage as if the suit summons were served?; whether notices in E.P.No.117/9 were also not served on the judgment debtors; whether the decree holde played fraud and obtained an order for delivery of the property in lis i O.S.No.777 of 1988?; whether the plaintiffs (respondents 2 and 3 herein were in possession of the plait schedule property against the defendants and were entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants? At the trial of O.S.No.506 of 1998, the revision petitioner as the thir defendant examined herself as D.W.4 and when the matter was posted fo further evidence on behalf of defendants 3 to 9, a chief examinatio affidavit of D.W.5 was filed; the testimony of D.W.5 filed as chief affidavit i to the effect that his name was mentioned as one of the attestors on promissory note dated 12.11.1985 and the conditional sale agreemen dated 13.11.1985 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour o the first defendant and that he had never signed as an attestor in the sai two documents. After the chief affidavit of D.W.5 was filed, at the instance of the thir defendant, the first defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.380 of 2007 unde Order XVIII Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C to expunge the chie examination of D.W.5 from the record of the suit. In the affidavit filed i support of I.A.No.380 of 2007, the first defendant claimed that th testimony is totally extraneous to the principal lis which is between th parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the first defendant and also totall extraneous to the issues framed for trial and that no evidence can be led which is totally unconnected with the issues framed for trial. The Court below by the impugned order held that in the writte statement, filed by D.W.4/revision petitioner, which is also adopted b defendants 4 to 9, it is not anywhere mentioned that the pro note date 12.11.1985 is forged or that the conditional sale agreement date 13.11.1985 is a fabricated document. Since the revision petitioner failed to take such a plea in the writte statement, that the signature of D.W.5 was forged on the promissory not dated 12.11.1985 and the conditional sale agreement dated 13.11.1985 the affidavit of D.W.5 was beyond the scope of pleadings and hence liabl to be eschewed. It must be noticed that the chief affidavit of D.W.5 i totally unconnected and extraneous to the issues framed for determinatio at the trial. The revision petitioner as the third defendant cannot have a independent issue for determination, beyond the issues framed in the su nor can he be permitted to lead evidence without a plea in the writte statement. On the aforesaid analysis this Court finds no error in the applicatio of law by the Court below, in allowing I.A.No.380 of 2007 filed by the firs respondent, the first defendant in O.S.No.506 of 1998. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There sha be no order as to costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 01.07.2010 va