Deft no.1 is the owner of flat and Deft no.2 is the secretary of the society.
In the year 2004 :- They filed joint Written Statement and admitted that Deft no.1 is the absolute owner and the exclusive possessor of the said flat.
In the year 2005 :- Order of status Quo passed by the civil Court which is still in force.
In the year 2010 :- They filed their joint “SAY” to some other application of Plaintiff in which they again admitted that Deft no.1 is the owner and possessor of the said flat.
In the year 2011 :- The Plaintiff came to know that flat was sold to third party and so he filed a case U/O. 39 rule 2A of C.P.C. against both defendants.
In the year 2011 :- The Deft No.1 filed his ‘written statement’ in the said case U/O.39 Rule 2A and mentioned that his father bought the said flat from the builder and so his father was the owner of the said flat and his father sold the said flat in the year 2006 and therefore the presence of his father and the purchaser of the said flat is just and necessary in the case and he further argued that because he was not owner and because he did not sell the said flat, the case U/O. 39 Rule 2A is not maintainable against him”.
Note :- Advocate in all the three Written Statements / SAY of defendants is same.
Guide !
