JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - W.P.(C). No. 14954 ot 2005 is connected with W.P.(C) Nos. 15692 & 12631 of 2005. The aforesaid three writ applications arise out of orders passed in two connected suits, namely, T.S. No. 1 of 1994 & T.S. No. 19 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada, and are taken up together for disposal. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that one Smt. Pasala Venkayamma, executed an agreement far sale in respect of Plot Nos.279/ 332/1 in Khata No. 52/3, Plot No. 279/332/2 and Plot No. 279/331 in Khata No. 25 in village Barijolla in Rayagada for Rs. 1,30,000 in favour of the Petitioner-Goli Laxminarayan. It is further averred that on the date of agreement, the Petitioner-Goli Laxminarayan paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000 & agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 at the time of sale deed. It is further averred that on the date of agreement i.e. 2.10.1990, possession of the plots under the agreement of sale was handed over to the Petitioner & the Petitioner claims that thereafter he has carried out agriculture operations on the said land in the year 1992-93. 2. The Petitioner had filed a suit (T.S. No. 1 of 1994) on 21.1.1994 seeking directions to the vendor to execute and register the sale deed on stamp paper to be supplied by the Petitioner and in the event of his failure, prayer was made before the Learned Court to execute the same in her favour. On 24.1.1994, the Petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. to injunct Smt. Pasala Venkayamma (vendor) from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner and by Order Dated 25.1.1994, this prayer was allowed and the vendor Pasala Venkayamma was injuncted from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner by way of an ex-parte order of injunction. 3. It is alleged by the Petitioner that service of notice of the suit on the Defendant (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) returned after service of notice on the Defendant personally on 24.2.1994 along with notice in M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994. 3. It is alleged by the Petitioner that service of notice of the suit on the Defendant (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) returned after service of notice on the Defendant personally on 24.2.1994 along with notice in M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994. It is further averred that the Petitioner as Plaintiff was examined in the suit and filed documents on 9.3.1994 and on 27.3.1994 Judgment was delivered by the Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Petitioner directing the Defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000 and to execute the same deed. On the self same date, the interim injunction passed on 25.1.1994 in M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994 was also made absolute. Thereafter, the decree in terms of the Judgment was' passed on 31.3.1994. 4. It is averred that the Petitioner issued a registered tetter on 16.4.1994 calling upon the Defendant Smt. Pasala Venkayamma to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed & such notice was received by the Defendant on 17.4.1994. It is averred by the Petitioner that he deposited bank draft dated 25.2.1994 drawn in favour of the Court in terms of the directions contained in the Judgment on 26.4.1994. The Execution Petition No. 17 of 1994 was filed by the Petitioner on 14.7.1994 to execute the decree passed in T.S. No. 1 of 1994. Once again, it is alleged that notice of the Execution Proceeding was personally served on the Defendant on 5.9.1994 & the executing Court, vide Order Dated 24.10.1994 came to hold that the notice on the Judgment debtor (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) was held to be sufficient. It is further alleged that the Petitioner filed an application along with the draft sale deed on 7.11.1994 praying for issue of notice to the Judgment-debtor & to direct her to execute the sale deed & once again by Order Dated 30.11.1994, notice was directed to be sent to the Judgment-debtor (Defendant) in the suit. Once again the executing Court by Order Dated 20.1.1995 came to a finding that notice was sufficient on being personally served on the Defendant whereafter on 26.4.1995 the Petitioner filed, non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.16,510 & on 10.5.1995, the sale deed was prepared, verified & signed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada & was sent to the Registrar for registration. Division), Rayagada & was sent to the Registrar for registration. Accordingly, the sale deed was registered on 10.7.1995 and the balance sale consideration was directed to be paid to the Judgment-debtor. 5. The Defendant-Smt. Pasala Venkayamma filed an application under Order Rule 13 C.P.C. on 27.10.2000 to set aside the ex-parte decree and the same was registered as M.J.C. No. 17 of 2000. In the said application, it had been contended that the said Pasala Venkayamma had come to know on 10.10.2000 about the passing of the ex-parte decree, when the Plaintiff (present Petitioner) tried to get the lands mutated in his favour. The Petitioner had filed T.S. No. 1 of 1994 on 21.1.1994 indicating the address of Smt. Pasala Venkayamma, as a resident of Rayagada and got the process issued and obtained an ex-parte decree. It was averred that no summons in the suit i.e. T.S. No.1 of 1994 had been served on her nor any intimation of the decree passed was in any way intimated to her & further, she categorically denied ever has been executed any sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff Petitioner. Since the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. had been filed beyond the period of limitation, the Defendant-Smt. Pasala Venkayamma also filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act on 1.5.2001 seeking condonation of delay in filing of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C, on the grounds noted hereinabove. 6. The Trial Court issued notice to the present Petitioner and the Petitioner filed a petition praying to dismiss the petition under order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. and also filed a further petition to summon and to direct the Defendant-vendor (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) for cross-examination. Accordingly, by Order Dated 26.8.2003, Learned Trial Court allowed the petition of the present Petitioner to cross-examine the vendor by Commission & accordingly, the Commissioner examined Smt. Pasala Venkayamma as P.W.1 on 18.11.2003. She deposed that she had no notice on the suit (Execution Proceeding) and while her application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was pending consideration, on 2.7.2004, Defendant-Smt. Pasala Venkayamma passed away. She deposed that she had no notice on the suit (Execution Proceeding) and while her application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was pending consideration, on 2.7.2004, Defendant-Smt. Pasala Venkayamma passed away. On 30.7.2004 a petition for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed by one Garapati Veerabhadra Rao, claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased and claiming the right to the disputed property on the basis of a ?Willnama" said to have been executed by the deceased-Defendant, prior to her demise. The Plaintiff-Writ Petitioner filed counter affidavit disputing the genuineness of the Willnama on 6.10.2004. His application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 3 C.P.C. was allowed by the Trial Court with the observation that the challenge made by the Plaintiff to the genuineness of the Willnama would be finally considered at the time of hearing of the suit. In M.J.C. No. 17 of 2000, final order was passed on 20.7.2005 allowing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C, inter alia, holding that notice in the case was never served on the vendor- Defendant Smt. Pasala Venkayamma (since deceased); allowing the substituted legal heir and/ or her successor in interest to participate in the suit. This order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada was challenged by the Plaintiff-Petitioner before the Addl. Dist. Judge, Rayagada in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2005. Although the revision was admitted, the interim order prayed for by the Plaintiff-Petitioner was refused and the Plaintiff-Petitioner filed writ application before this Court i.e. W.P (C) No. 12210 of 2005. Although the writ application was filed, no order was passed therein and on 19.11.2005, the Learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Raygada dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the Plaintiff- Petitioner. Hence, the present writ application i.e. W.P.(C) No. 14954 of 2005 has been filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner challenging the order passed by the Learned Civil Judga(Sr. Division), Rayagada in M.J.C. No. 17 of 2000 dated 20.7.2005 as well as the order confirming the same passed by the Learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Rayagada in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2005 dated 19.11.2005. 7. It is further averred that, after the suit was restored to file pursuant to the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada has affirmed by the Addl. Dist. Judge, Rayagada in the cases mentioned hereinabove. Dist. Judge, Rayagada in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2005 dated 19.11.2005. 7. It is further averred that, after the suit was restored to file pursuant to the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada has affirmed by the Addl. Dist. Judge, Rayagada in the cases mentioned hereinabove. On 27.7.2005, an application under Order 22 Rule-4 C.P.C. was filed by the present Petitioner indicating therein that on 2.7.2004 Smt. Pasala Venkayamma died and the substitution of G. Veerabhadra Rao was wrongly made as her legal representative on the ground that the Trial Court in M.J.C. No. 17 of 2000 in its Order Dated 19.2.2005 had held that the contentions as to the dispute regarding the successor Willnama would be considered later in the suit and that the legal representative had been implemented only for the time being. It was further averred that apart from G. Veerabhadra Rao, one Yeleti Veerbhadra Rao was also impleaded and that the application had been filed by G. Veerabhadra Rao for himself and for G.Veerabhadra Rao as power of attorney holder. This petition under Order 22 Rule-4 C.P.C. had not been allowed and. challenged by the Plaintiff-Petitioner in W.R(C) No. 15692 of 2005. 8. It is further averred that Yeleti Veerbhadra Rao filed a suit bearing T.S. No. 19 of 2001 against G .Laxminarayan (present Petitioner), Smt. Pasala Venkayamma (Defendant in T.S. No. 1 of 1994) and G.Veerabhadra Rao with a prayer to declare the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff therein, i.e. Y. Veerbhadra Rao on the plea that after the death of Smt. Pasala Venkayamma, the Plaintiff Y. Veerbhadra Rao had succeeded to the properties of the deceased. After the restoration of T.S. No. 1 of 1994 on 3.8.2005, the Petitioner G. Laxminarayan filed an application u/s 10 C.P.C. contending that since T.S.1 of 1994 had been restored and the same suit being the earlier suit at that point of time and since in both the suits, the ownership and subsisting title of Smt. Pasala Venkayamma was in question, the later suit, i.e., T.S. No. 19 of 2001 should be stayed. This application u/s 10 C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner-G. Laxminarayan came to be rejected on 12.8.2005 holding that the application for impletion of the parties is still pending and unless and until they were made parties and their written statements were filed, it was not possible to hold that the subject matter was the same. Accordingly, challenging the aforesaid Order Dated 12.8.2005 the Petitioner G. Laxminarayan has filed W.P.(C) No. 10256 of 2005 on 16.8.2005. This writ application filed by the Petitioner was disposed of by this Court holding that T.S. No. 19 of 2001 as well as T.S. No. 1 of 1994 should be taken up analogously. Subsequent to this order, a further application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed by Y. Veerbhadra Rao (Plaintiff in T.S. No. 19 of 2001) seeking for joining the decree with Defendant No. 2 in which the present Petitioner raised his objection and on the said application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. being allowed by the Order Dated 25.8.2005, the present Petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 12631 of 2005. In the aforesaid background of facts that the three applications, namely, W.P.(C) Nos.14954, 15692 and 12631 of 2005 are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 9. In the light of the facts as noted hereinabove, the following facts appear from the case record: i) On 21.1.1994, T.S. No. 1 of 1994 was filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff before the Sub-Judge, Rayagada. ii) On 25.1.1994, on a petition filed by the Petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking injunction against the Defendant, was granted, in M.J.C. No. 3 of 1994, i.e., within a period of one day of filing of the suit. iii) Thereafter, the matter appears to be listed on 11.2.1994 in which the Trial Court recorded that S.R. of summons not back & the registered cover was received back without service with a report that "addressee not known". iv) On 24.2.1994, the Trial Court recorded that the notice issued against the Opposite Party back after personal service. v) On 27.3.1994, due to the alleged absence of the Defendant the suit was decreed. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet, it clearly appears that the suit was filed on 21.1.1994, injunction was granted on 25.1.1994 and the suit was decreed on 27.3.1994, i.e., within a period of two months. v) On 27.3.1994, due to the alleged absence of the Defendant the suit was decreed. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet, it clearly appears that the suit was filed on 21.1.1994, injunction was granted on 25.1.1994 and the suit was decreed on 27.3.1994, i.e., within a period of two months. The deceased-Defendant (Smt. Pasala Venkayamma) filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. which was registered as M.J.C. No. 17 of 2000 which came to be rejected by the Learned Addl, Dist. Judge, Rayagada. From the facts as noted hereinabove, it is clear that the Plaintiff-Petitioner after having obtained an ex parte decree has tried his utmost to try and sustain the result of the suit as well as caused delay in filing of written statement'in the suit by the legal heirs of the deceased-Smt. P. Venkayamma for their right, title and interest over the disputed property. 11. The Petitioner herein had also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10256 of 2005 and by Order Dated 5.9.2005, this Court disposed of the writ application directing both the suits namely T.S. Nos.19 of 2001 & 1 of 1994 are to be heard analogously by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division),.Baigada and even after such order was passed, once again the Petitioner, has come up in the present batch of writ petitions. 12. I am of the considered view that the present batch of Writ Petitions merits no furthec consideration whatsoever, since the earlier directions of this Court are binding on all the parties & accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed by reiterating the earlier direction passed by this Court dated 5.9.2005 in W.P.(C) No. 10256 of 2005 & direct the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada to take up T.S. Nos. 19 of 2001 & 1 of 1994 analogously & dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order & the lower Court order. No necessary adjournment shall be granted & expeditious steps may be taken for disposal of the same. The writ applications stand dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed