Telangana High Court
Gajjala Gopal vs Bokka Narsimha on 9 September, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 OF 2025
ORDER :
(ORAL)
This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 18.06.2025 in I.A. No.1074 of 2023 in E.P. No.63 of 2023 in
O.S. No.1333 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon (for short 'trial
Court').
2. Notice has been taken out to the respondent by the petitioner in
compliance of the order dated 18.07.2025 and Memo of proof of service
of notice was filed vide S.R. No.81228 of 2025. However, there is no
representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the decree holder, and the
respondent is the defendant in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 filed for specific
performance of agreement of sale under Section 26 read with Order VII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No.129/B, situated at Koduru
Village, Raghunathpally Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District. The suit
was decreed by judgment and decree dated 03.03.2023 directing the
defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff and execute a sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff within a period of three (3) months from the date of
the decree. The plaintiff filed application in I.A. No.1074 of 2023 in
O.S. No.1333 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for
short 'Act') read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of
201 days in depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- as
directed in the decree dated 03.03.2023. The application was dismissed
by the order dated 18.06.2025 by observing that the plaintiff failed to
comply with the clear direction of the trial Court and failed to deposit the
balance sale consideration within the stipulated time period of three (3)
months from the date of the decree. It is further held that the delay of
201 days is substantial and unexplained, in the absence of any material to
show that the petitioner made any bona fide attempt to seek clarification
of the decree; the plea appears to be an afterthought. The trial Court
further held that the decree being conditional and time-bound, the non-
compliance strikes at the very root of enforceability and that permitting
such delay without adequate justification would encourage laxity in
execution of decree and defeat the sanctity of the judicial order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court
possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff has issued legal notice dated
08.05.2023 to the defendant through registered post with
acknowledgment due to receive the balance sale consideration amount
and execute sale deed. The acknowledgment due was returned
unclaimed. Thus, the trial Court failed to recognise that the plaintiff has
tendered the balance sale consideration to the defendant. Learned
counsel further submitted that the decree dated 03.03.2025 only directs
the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount of
Rs.50,000/- and execute the sale deed within a period of three (3) months
failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the decree executed through
Court of law. There was no direction to the plaintiff to deposit the
balance sale consideration within a period of three (3) months.
5. As seen from the decree dated 03.03.2025, there is no direction by
the trial Court to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration
amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three (3) months. The direction
was only to the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and
execute the sale deed. The relevant portion of the decree dated
03.03.2025 reads as under:
"...
2. That the defendant is directed to receive the balance sale
consideration of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and execute a
registered sale deed in his favour within three months from the
date of this decree failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get
the decree executed through the Court of Law.
..."
Thus, there is no ambiguity in the decree. In the opinion of this Court,
there was no necessity for the plaintiff to file any condone delay
application to deposit the balance sale consideration. It appears due to
incorrect understanding and misinterpretation of the decree,
the application under Section 5 of the Act was filed.
6. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed.
The order dated 18.06.2025 in I.A. No.1074 of 2023 in E.P. No.63 of
2023 in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to
restore the E.P. No.63 of 2023 by permitting the plaintiff to deposit the
balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of E.P. and
pass orders by issuing notice to the judgment debtor in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this civil revision petition stand closed.
_______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
September 9, 2025
RRK
