HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.212 of 2006 Date: December 24, 2010 Between: M/s. Arudra Roofings Limited, Secunderabad, rep. by its authorized Signatory Rajanikanth … Petitioner And 1.Chittireddy Sudhir Babu & others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.212 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.2005 passed in O.S.S.R.No.12042 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. No representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the C.R.P. itself. 4. The petitioner is the plaintiff. It filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale. The petitioner/plaintiff is the limited company. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with a middleman Narasimha Reddy, who representing the respondents/defendants received an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on 25.8.2005. It is also their case that they got issued a public notice in a local newspaper before paying Rs.1.00 lakh by way of cheque to the middleman Narasimha Reddy who encashed the same on 02.9.2005. It is also their case that subsequently negotiations took place on 31.8.2005 where an offer was made to purchase the property at Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre. It is also the case of the petitioner that negotiations took place between the plaintiff and defendants in the presence of mediators T. Devender Rao and V.R. Sharma where the actual terms and conditions were confirmed on 31.8.2005. 5. The lower court having observed that there is no privity of contract between the parties and there is nothing on record to show that the payment made to the middleman is linked with oral agreement of sale rejected the plaint filed by the petitioners. Admittedly an amount of rs.1.00 lakh was paid to the middleman Narasimha Reddy on 25.8.2005 who seems to have been encashed the same on 02.9.2005. Admittedly, negotiations are held subsequently on 31.8.2005. It is not the case of the petitioner that any payments were made subsequent to 31.8.2005. 6. It is clear that there was no privity of contract as on 25.8.2005 between the plaintiff and the defendants. Admittedly, no payments were made even after the alleged negotiations on 31.8.2005. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower court. There is no irregularity or illegality requiring any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: December 24, 2010. BSB