Karnataka High Court
Sri. R.Chandrashekar vs Sri. Satyaprakash on 22 June, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.8161 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43/16, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
2 . SRI. K. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O H. KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.203/13, 7TH A CROSS,
7TH MAIN, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. SATYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PROP. HARSHITHA BUILDER AND DEVELOPER
NO.116/3, 3RD MAIN, CAUVERY NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU
....RESPONDENT
(SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 01.09.2021)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED ON I.A. IN
O.S.NO.165/2016 BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA AS PER
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated
25.07.2019, passed in O.S.No.165/2016 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Ramanagar have
filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The petitioners filed a suit for specific
performance of contract in O.S.No.165/2016. In the
said suit, the Trial Court issued summons to
respondent. Inspite of service of summons,
respondent did not appear and was placed ex parte.
The Trial Court recorded the evidence of petitioners
and decreed the suit of the petitioners and directed
the petitioners to deposit the balance consideration
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 3 months
from the date of order and inform the respondent
about the same. The petitioners could not deposit the
balance consideration amount within the stipulated
period and hence filed an application for extension of
time for depositing the same. The Trial Court rejected
the said application on the ground that the petitioners
have not produced any document in support of their
contention. Hence this writ petition.
3. This Court issued notice to the respondent.
Notice was duly served. Inspite of service of notice,
none appears for the respondent. Heard learned
counsel for petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner could not deposit the balance sale
consideration amount within stipulated period due to
personal inconvenience. Thus delay is caused in
depositing the balance consideration amount. Trial
Court without considering the sufficient cause shown
in depositing the balance consideration at a belated
stage, has passed the impugned order. He submits
that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is
arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on these grounds, he
prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed a
suit for specific performance of contract. The Trial
Court decreed the suit of the petitioners and directed
the petitioners to deposit the balance consideration
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 3 months
from the date of judgment. Petitioners could not
deposit the said amount within the time stipulated.
Petitioners filed an application for extension of time to
deposit the balance consideration amount stating that
due to personal inconvenience, the petitioners could
not deposit the balance consideration amount within
time. It is stated in the petition that though the
petitioners offered to pay the balance consideration
amount to the respondent, respondent has refused to
accept the same. Petitioners have produced copy of
memo filed before the Trial Court. The memo
discloses that petitioners have submitted the demand
draft dated 29.05.2019, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-,
before the Trial Court. From the perusal of the order
sheet dated 25.07.2019, it indicates that the
petitioners have filed memo along with an application
for taking the case on board. Though the petitioners
have complied the direction issued by the Trial Court,
the said compliance was not within stipulated period.
However, petitioners have shown sufficient cause for
not depositing the balance consideration amount
within the stipulated time. The Trial Court has
committed an error in not extending the period for
compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court. The order passed by the Trial Court is
arbitrary and erroneous and same is liable to be set
aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside.
Consequently, the application filed by the
petitioners for extension of time, is allowed
and time granted to deposit the balance
consideration amount in O.S.No.165/2016,
is extended for a further period of 4
months.
The Trial Court has not encashed the
demand draft submitted by the petitioners
and if the validity of the demand draft is
expired, then the petitioners are directed to
revalidate the demand draft within a period
of15 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. If the petitioners fail to
furnish the demand draft within the
stipulated period, then the petitioners
would not be entitled for the benefit of this
order.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
