IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011 AND C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011 C.R.P.No.458 of 2011: Between: Kurapati Stalin ..... PETITIONER AND Rebba Yesobu and others ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011: Between: Kurapati Stalin ..... PETITIONER AND Rebba Yesobu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011 AND C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.75 of 1989 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chirala, against the respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 24.09.1991. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.131 of 2007 for execution of the decree. In that E.P., the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 herein filed E.A.No.738 of 2007, under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, claiming rights over the suit property. According to them, the suit property was agreed to be sold by the respondents 2 and 3 under agreement of sale, dated 05.05.1986 and that the possession thereof was also delivered. An attempt made by them to file the agreement of sale did not fructify because it was not properly stamped, much less penalty was paid thereon. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 filed E.A.Nos.170 and 171 of 2009 with a prayer to reopen the suit and to recall PW.1 for marking the said document. It was stated that after the executing Court refused to take the document for want of impounding, they have accumulated necessary funds and they are ready to get the document impounded. The applications were opposed by the 1st respondent. The executing Court dismissed the E.As. through a common order, dated 13.04.2009. Hence, these two revisions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It is no doubt true that an earlier attempt made by the petitioner to get the agreement of sale to be made part of record did not fructify on account of the fact that it was not properly stamped. If the matter were to have been that simple, the present attempt, made after they accumulated the necessary resources, cannot be found fault with. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner filed O.S.No.309 of 1996 with a prayer to set aside the decree in O.S.No.75 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 28.08.2000. The decree passed by the Court in that suit is said to have become final. It is important to note that the very basis of the petitioner to file the said suit is the agreement of sale, dated 05.05.1986. Once their attempt to get the decree in O.S.No.75 of 1989 set aside by filing a separate suit did not fructify, there is no way, they can plead that very ground in the E.A. This court cannot ignore the facts, which are brought to its notice. The 1st respondent was denied the benefit of the decree that was passed over several decades ago. There are no merits and the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 03, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011 AND C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011 August 03, 2011 MD