HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.469 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER
NOTE
09 17.08.2022 SRS,J
I.A.No.01 of 2021
Plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.148 of 2007
on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Kakinada filed the present second
appeal. The suit is filed for specific
performance of oral agreement of sale or in
the alternative for refund of Rs.4,00,000/-
with interest and costs.
The said suit was dismissed by the trial
Court. Against the judgment and decree of
the trial Court, plaintiff filed A.S.No.83 of
2011 on the file of the VI Additional District
Judge, Kakinada. The Lower appellate Court
while dismissing the appeal in respect of
specific performance, decreed the suit in
respect of refund of amount.
Against the said decree and judgment,
the present appeal is filed with delay of 434
days. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, the
reasons were stated with regard to delay.
This Court ordered notice to the
respondent. Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned
counsel appeared for the respondent. Respondent filed counter and opposing application stating that no valid reasons were assigned to condone the delay of 434 days.
During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that respondent filed S.A.No.333 of 2019 against the grant of relief of refund of amount by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.83 of 2011, and the same was admitted by this Court. Now, the said appeal is pending for consideration.
The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of 2 lower appellate Court for not granting relief of specific performance. Since the appeal filed by the defendant in the suit is already pending before this Court and in view of the reasons mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the accompanying affidavit, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of six (6) weeks today.
_______ SRS,J S.A.No.354 of 2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration.
"1. Whether the judgments of Courts below are vitiated in not considering that the time is essence of the contract in case of immovable property and the possession was delivered after receiving entire sale consideration?
2. Whether the judgments of Courts below are vitiated in not considering the conduct of the defendant?
3. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 properly?
List this matter along with S.A.No.333 of 2019 _______ SRS,J Ksp 3