Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sanda Pulla Reddy vs Y.Venkata Lakshumma on 13 November, 2024
APHC010060122023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 338/2023
Between:
Sanda Pulla Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Y Venkata Lakshumma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SITA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SODUM ANVESHA
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Civil Revision Petition No.338 of 2023
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated
13.10.2022 in E.P.No.01 of 2018 in O.S.No.21 of 2006 passed by the learned
I Additional District Judge, Kadapa.
2. The Petitioners are the Judgment Debtors. The suit for specific
performance was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein with regard to suit
schedule property of an extent of 12.54 cents.
3. On contest, the suit was decreed on 19.12.2016 directing the defendants
to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receiving
balance of sale consideration, within 60 days and put the plaintiff in
possession of suit land, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit the
balance sale consideration into Court and obtain sale deed from Court.
4. While so, as respondents/plaintiffs filed E.P.No.1 of 2018 seeking
direction by the trial Court to execute the registered sale deed in favour of
decree holders in accordance with the decree. The E.P. was filed on
02.01.2018. The petitioners herein filed their common counter objecting the
execution proceedings and contended that the decree holders did not deposit
the amount within the time prescribed in the decree. As such, the decree
cannot be executed.
5. The Judgment Debtor No.4 also filed counter contending that appeal
was filed before this Court vide A.S.No.878 of 2018 and the same was
pending. In view of the pendency of the appeal, the execution Court could not
proceed further in the matter. The trial Court taking into consideration the
relevant submissions, allowed the said E.P. and decree holders were
permitted to proceed further. Questioning the same, the present CRP was
filed by J.Drs.2 and 3 only.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the
respondents.
7. The primary objections of J.Dr Nos.2 and 3 is that the sale consideration
was not deposited within the time of 60 days prescribed in the decree, as
such, this decree is un-executable. The time limit of 60 days prescribed by
the Court would lapse on 19.02.2017 and as the balance sale consideration
was deposited in the month of March, 2017, the reasoning of the trial Court
that, even though there was no application seeking extension of time, as the
amount was deposited within a reasonable time thereafter, the decree can be
executed. This reasoning by the trial Court cannot be termed to be perverse.
8. Further the clause 2 of the decree reads as under:
"(2) That the defendants be and are hereby directed to
execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on
receiving balance of sale consideration within 60 days from
the date of this judgment and put the plaintiffs in possession
of suit land failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit
the balance of sale consideration into Court and obtain sale
deed from Court."
9. The clause does not actually mention any specific time frame for deposit
of sale consideration into the Court. The time limit i.e. fixed under the above
clause is for the defendants to execute sale deed after receiving balance
consideration within 60 days, failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty to
deposit the sale consideration in the Court.
10. As stated above, there is no time limit for the plaintiffs to deposit the
amount into Court as apparent from the decretal clause. On this ground also,
the objection of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Order as to
costs. Other miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 13.11.2024
ASR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CRP NO.338 of 2023
Dt. 13.11.2024
ASR
