1. Mr. Alati Venkatarama Reddy(AVR) v. 1. Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central Trust

Petitio:r under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the lnterim Order dated 29.11.2019 granted in lA.No.1 of 2019 in CRP 2218 of 2019 until further orders. Counsel forthe Petitioners: Sri A. Venkatesh, Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER 3 NIVR] C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 TTr!N'PT Et SPT .ITTS'TIr1TI nIAD(ITN': ElAN NANNTI'r)NNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2OL9 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is {lled under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders ol the learned XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, R.R. District at Kukatpally uide S.R.No.5990 o12019 in O.S.No.210 of 2019 wherein the learned Judge permitted the piaintiffs to deposit the balancc sale consideration amount into the credit of the suit ri'ith immediate effect and subsequently on request, the time was extended and further time was granted from 03 .O7 .2O 1 9 to 1 I .O9 .2O I 9 for plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners / plaintifls.

2. Brief lacts of the case;re that the petitioners herein are that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking a I I 4 NNRJ c.R.P No.2218 0f20)9 relief of specific performance of an agrc'ement of sale dated I4 O'2.2OO2 with Memorandum ol Understanding dated 31 0B 2OO5 executed bv and betn,een defendant Nos.1 to !l hcrein on one irand and plaintills on the other, in the ca1;acity of vendors and vendees. In addition to the abovc rclief, plaintiffs as consequential reliefs, also seek declaration as nuli and void of various documents executed bv t he defendants clandestinely ar-icl in collusion with each ()ther so as to defeat the rights of the agreement ol sale read with MOU.

3. The nrau-r grievance of the petitioners belore this Court is th:rt at the very inception ol the plaint perfunctoril.y and without considering the legal position, the Court below has permrtted the petrtroners to deposit the balance sale consideration uide docket order dated

15.06.2O19;.e., even before the subject suit r:ame up for the lirst time and much less even before the respondents had entered appearance. 5 NNR.I c.R.P. Na.2218 oJ2019

4. It is further contended that even though the petitioners made an attempt to apprise the legai position on 19.06.2019 b1, citing the applicable case law and after hearing the arguments on the said issue at length, the Court belo,.r, posted the matter to O1.07.2019 and

15.07.2019 in tandem for orders and it is lurther contended that thc Ie arne,i .ludgc uide docket order datcd

15.07.2019 on the said issue with adverting to either to the arguments or the case law as cited by the petitioners / plaintiffs.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is fiied contending that the said direction by way of permission siven by the learned Judge is against the provisions of 1aw and equality in fair play. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the deposit of balance sale consideration at such a preliminary stage of the suit is against the principles of equity and good conscience, having regard to heary sums 6 /v/vRJ C-R.P No.2218 of2019 of monies belonging to the petitioners u,ri,-rld be locked up.

6. It is alsc lurther con'.cnCecl .-.'--..1i . v6l4 '. ^ tLo direction t o clcposit of balance sale considcration shouid sparingly be used considering thc facts and circumstanccs of the case and that too, il thc Court below comes to a conclusion that, it is necessary to advance the cause of justice, that being the position. the impugned order could not have been passed bir the iearned Judge at very inception of the plaint. It is erlso contended that the learned .Juclgt: ought to have seen that the trial of the subject suit had itself had 11ot yet commenced and notices as such are still in course of transrnission to few of the respondents. The learnecl Juclge as such ought not to have passed the impugned order at such an inception of the plaint, hcnce prayed to sct asidc thc said ordcr and by ailowing the civil revision petition

7. Having responded to the notices issued by this Court and as being served, Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy 7 C.R.P. No 2218 012019 appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Though notices were served on responder-rt Nos.4 ar,d 7, none appeared on their behalf. Notice to respondent No.2 has been unsen'ed and refused and as such it is deemed to have been served and respondent No.3 appeared through counsel Sri S. Sharat Kumar, respondent No.5 by Sri V.V. Raghavan and none appeared on behalf of respondent No.6. However, respondent No.6 was set exparte though notices were issued by \\ray of substitute service Though, I.A.Nos.l,2 and 3 of 2024 were filed by the representative of respondent No.8 posing himself as legatee, the said I.As were allowed and proposed respondent was brought on record for a limited purpose of disposal of the present revision petition subject to raising of any pleas on the question of entitlement of proposed respondent to l-epresent the legal representative of respondent No.B. The petitioner contends that the proposed respondent is not entitled to represent respondent No.S purely as the alleged WILL leaving the l I E NNR) C.R.P No.2218 of2019 said question open to be decided before tht: trial Court as prescribed under Order XXII, Rule 5 of CPC

8. Hr:ard Sri A. Venkatesh. learned S(tlrior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, leani,:d counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for responde nt No. 1. No i'r, prescntation on behalf o[respondent Nos.3 to 5

9. Having heard the contentions and rivzri contentions of both the learned counsels, the points that iu-ose before this Cou;:t for consideration are as follou.s "i. Whether the Cnr rrf can insist unon the plaintilfs lo dcposit the balance sale consideration al the inceptiorr r,l the plaint? permitting ii. Whether the order of thc trial Court t-he petitioners/ plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration before the Court below is permissible or proper and the same deserves to be set aside?" 9 NNR) C.R.P. No.2218 012019

10. Point No.1; Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued and contended that the very order passed by the Court below is against the provisions of the Specilic Relief Act. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were made to deposit the balance sa-ie consideration of Rs.32 Crores. 1 1. On perusal of the record it discloses that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2iO of 2019 before the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Judge at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.O2.'2OO2 read with Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 1.08.2005 in respect of land arlrneasrrrino Ar- 7O OO rnrnlaq 1lt Survey Nos.104/ 1, lO4/2, 105, 106, 107 and 108 situated at Kondapur Village, Seriiingampally Municipa-lity, Serilingampally Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the sale consideration agreed is upon Rs.70,OO,O00/- per acre 10 C.R.P No.221a a12019 i.e., Rs.40 Crores and plaintiffs in fact had advanced a sum of Rs.11,00,0001- and a sum ol Rs.(r 00,000/ \{:as paid to respondent Nos.1 to 3 anci the balance has to bc paid ai ttre time of registration of sa-le decrd. It is also contendeci lhat the time is the assense oi the contract. The main grievance of the petitioners is thar the practicc prevailed l>efore the trial Court that an undertakir-rg has to be given by the party lvho approachcs the property seeking sp,rcific performance of any agreemcnt of sale or contract u,ith an undertaking that they arr: ready and also reaciy to deposit the balance sale consirleration arld it is pointed out that no such procedure prescribed either b1' \UiIV of any circulars ol this Cor,rrt on the administrative side or the 1aw does not pelrnit to seek such an unCertaking and aiso further poin-.cd out that the entire episode which led to hling of the said civil revision petition is on the ground that permission was granted by Court below it is contended as per the procedure pr,:scribed before the trial Court to cancel the sarne. It is contended that the plaintiffs hnve filed a 11 c.R.P. No.2218 0f2019 memo before the trial Court by way of affidavit in S.R.No.599O o{ 2Ol9 and on the said date of filing of the suit it reads as follou,s "ln receipt of part of the total sale consideration payable under the Agreement of Sale d,ated 14 .O2.2OO2 read u,ith Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2OO5 and as such, the plaintiffs are seeking specilic pcrformance of the said agreement, they undertake to pa;'the balance sale consideration as and when thc Court so directs."

12. It is contended that though there was no permission sought on in the affidavit, still the Court belor,v permitted the petitioners to deposit the said balance sale consideration into the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that so as to consider the circumstances therein, the petitioners/plaintiffs were constrained to comply the said direction. Though 1n para No.6 of the grounds it is contended that the petitioners m a-cl-e a-n a-ttempt to a.ppraise the Court a,s to the legal position by stating CASC lau,s, but the Court 'r2 NNRJ c.R.P. No.2218 of2019 below lrave insisted the plaintiffs on O) .O7.2019 &

15.O7.2019 to deposit the balance sakr ,:onsidera.tion u.ithout aclverting either to thc argumcllts or case lan s cited by the petitioners. 1 3. Learned counsel for the petitioncrs relied upon the juclgmcnt in "Sakamuri Sioarambabu and Another o. Paraso,d Sunjan Raju"l wherein it is held :rs loilou's: (i) where a contract involves tlr c pavment of money, it is not essentirrl for the plaintiff to actually tender to thr: defendant or to deposit in court anr' money cxcept when so directed by the court, (ii) the plaintiff rnust aver performancc of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its l rue construction. IDxplanation (i) as extracted states that ir1 cast:s where payment of money is invoh,cd, it is not that essential for the plaintiff to actu ally I ender or deposit t he mon"-r' ercept when so directed by the Court. Thc direction to deposit the money is as a m atter of exception, the general rule beir-rg ' rssz 1r1 nLr sa: 13 T.IN& C.R.P. No.2218 oJ2019 that there is no necessity of the money being deposited io order to prove one's own readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. Further the direction envisaged by the cxplanation as a measure ^f ^L\ P (!vr ! ^*^^-.i^- r ^^--^, l.^ ..-narar^,.^ -a ^na at the inceptiurl stag( of the suit for purposes of registering the plarnt and entertaining the suit. Even the decisions relied upon by the Court below, r'iz. Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. Munuswamv Udayar and OLhers, and Alagammal Vs. M.S. Rajagopala Sena.r, clearly lay dow'n that it is not essentia-l to the plaintiff to actually tendcr the money inlolved or deposit the money in the Court, except when so specificalfy c['"cted by the Court. This exception does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue direction for deposit of balance consideratiorr evcn dt the inception stage of the proceedings, i.c., at the stage of registering and entertaining the suit. What a-U required by Scction 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act is that the plaintiff should aver performance of, or readincss and willingness to perform, his part of the contract. Admittedly, there is such zrn averment a:rtd in fact certain monev r.r'as paid even at the time of entering into the agreement, some more later on, and the balance money is obtained by the plaintiffs as a loan salctioned by the Life Insurance Corporation and there are specific 14 lvrvfl C R P. No 2218 of2A19 averments in this beha-lf made in the p Iar nt. B. In a mattcr similar to the one on hand, this Court in C.R.P.902l9I dated 20 3- 199 I set aside the order of the lower court the baliurcc dirccting deposit of consideration a:rd dirccted the lower Court ro rcgister the plajnt and pass appropriatc orders, subject of course complying tit.h f,:rmalities other than this. In view of all tl.ris, we find that the order under appeal rs onc made without jurisdiction anC accordingly it is liable to be set aside." Learne:d counsel for the petitioners further reLied on the judgmellt passed 1n "Gongunta gopald Krishna Murthg u Uppala Jutala Narasimhanrl and Ors.'2 wherein it ls held as foliows: ''Before numbering the above suit. clirected the plaintiff, in view of E)xplanation (i) to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to prepare to deposit the sale consideration after filing of the u,ritten statement while drrccting the Sheristadar of the Court to register the plaint, if otherwise in order. ' ArR 2002 AP 68 15 c R.P. No.2218 of20J.9 A reading of the above-said provision makes it clear that one has to prove that he has performed and always been ready and willing to perlorm the contract, but the defendant has lailed or prevented or waived to perlorm the contract. In those circumstanccs Explanation (i) empowers the Cour[ to direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance of money in the Court il the Court comes to the conclusion bascd on facts and circumstances of the case to prove the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part oi contract by depositing balancc money in the Court. Explanation (i) supra is an exception to the above section where payment of money is involved and it is not essential for the plaintiff to actualh, tender to the defendant and he need not deposit in the Court any money at the time of presentation of the plaint, except when so directed by the Court. What all required is to prove that one's own readiness or willingness to perlorm his part of the contract. The direction envisaged in the explanation is a rneasure of exception and it cannot be understood at the stage of inception of the suit for the purpose of registering 16 C.R.P Na 2218 aJ2A:9 plaint and entertaining the suit, the amount has to be depositeci. On the other hand, the Court is empowered to issue direction to deposit the balzrnce conside ration, if it is satisfied that the plaintilf is not in a position to get registration of the sale agrcement, if decree is passed in his favour. At this stage, the Court, under the above-said provision, is enlitled to direct the piaintifl to deposit the remaining sale ,.-^-;'{--,,r:^- r\^,,-i 1-,,r .1a- :- ('ilnnot direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration even at the stage of inception of the plaint or at the stage of registration and entertaining r he suit. 'l'hat averments have been made as contemplated u/s 16(c) ol the Specific ltt:licf Act, it cannot be said that Court has no power to order deposit of the amount. It is further observed that rvhere the consideration amount is on high side and the amount of advance paid is low, it is desirable to put a check on the suitors in preventing them from filing false and vexatious suits and the agreement of sale need not be rr:gistered and it can easily be brought into existence at any time with the \_- , t7 C.R P. No.2218 of2019 active connivance of the scribe and the attestors. It is further observed that it is the duty of the Subordinate Judicial Officers to consider whether in a given case a direction can be given to deposit the balance to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation that has been made in the plaint about the readiness ol the plaintiff to perform his iiari c,f the coitiact. When the Subordinate Judge with experience found that false and vexatious suits are being filed, he is certainly at liberty to ask for deposit of money and whe n the discretion has been exercised by the Judicial officer in a given set of circumstances."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued ancl ^^- r-- -l -.1 r1-^r undertaking for the purpose of which it is given by the petitioners/plaintiffs at the time of fi1ing of the suit is only to comply with the mandate of the Court concerned and as per the procedure expressing their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and also to show that he has suff rcient funds and he has to keep on generating funds lor the purpose I I I I I 18 NNR,/ C.R.P. No 2218 012019 of complrance of conditions of the agreement and also for specific perlormance of the contract. In tl-ris context, the lc.arned cDunse 1 for Lhe petitioners relied on the judgment o[ tlrc Hcrrrlr]c liigh Court ol l(erala in "Deaa.ssg and Another u. Abdulla Koga ilaji and Others'a wherein it is he ld as foilor.vs: "ll a challenee thereof is raised an issue h:rs to be framed ar-rd it has to be tried :,rncl decided. To show readiness and rviilingness the plaintifl in a specific performance need not furnish liquid cash and he need only show that he is possesscd of funds or that he is capablc of ger-rerating iunds for the specifi<: perlbnnance of the contract. In the present case, the plaintiffs havt: produced communication from thc bank shor.r,ing the bank balance ol the iirst plaintiff, but, no enquiry as to the balance shon,n in lhat statement as conducted. When that be the case, it cannot be construed that the impugned ordcr d ismissing the suit is based on a decision taken by the Court with refcrence to readiness and willingness 'zoro (z) rHc zgr 19 C.8.P- No.2216 oi2019 of the plaintiff covered under Section 16 (c) of the Specilic Relief Act. ii. A request for time with a representation to deposit the sum by the counsel by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an undertaking given by the plaintiff before the Court. Assuming that the representation was an undertaking it cannot lead to dismissal of a suit, even if it is flouted without giving notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the undertaking has not been complied w,ith. Before a party is non-suited for the reason of an undertaking given by the counsel, the elementary principles of natural justice demand that he should be heard. ln spite of the lact that the plaintiff has produced statements issued by the bank showing his cash balance, which is not disputed as not suffrcient to satisfy the balance sale consideration, for nol depositing the sum, as if there was an undertaking by the plaintiffs counsel to do so, the Court below has dismissed the suit. lr1. 24 The rigour imposed under Section of the Specihc Relief Act, 1877 I 20 C-R.P. Na.2218 012019 insisting for deposit of the balance sale consideration due under an agreement of sale to prove the readiness and ri,iliingness o[ thc purchaser to establish his claim for spccific performance of a contract by the opposite party was u,atered down and in fact given a go-b1' under the new Act. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short'the Act'). 'lhe recommendations ol the Lau, Commission in its 9th report for dispcnsing with such onerous condition on a party seeking specific pcrformance of a contact, in [act, has given rise to the liberalized provision under Sectior-r 16 (c) with the explanation added to that section under the new Act. Stction 16 (c) ol the Act with the 'trxplanation' thereto, rvhich alone is relevant in the prescnt case."

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently a,rfiued and contended that the petitioncrs are not entitled for specific perlormance and also stated that he has goocl delence before the trial Court but the said aspects cannot come in the present civil revision petition as the point for consideration before this Court is limited 21 NNRJ c.R.P. No.2218 ol2o19 I only to the extent whether the direction to deposit the balance sale consideration is valid or not.

16. A perusal of the above said decisions wherein it is specifically stated that considering the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Act it shows that the suit hled for specific performance of contract calnot be enforced in favour o[ a person who fails to prove that he has always been ready and v,,illing to perform the essential terms of the contract and it is also clear that a partSr rvho approaches the Court for enforcing of the contract and as such the law q,hich requires is that there must be an application and the same afso has to be proved. The question of proof of any application would arise only after filing of the written statement or after completion of the pleadings and a-lso after going into the merits of the case. In such cases, if the law also provides that where the contract which involves the demands of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to tender the defendants and deposit the money except when so directed by the Court. I 22 C.R-P- No.2218 of2019 In the case even if the said provision there sha1l be a direction by the Court that in a suit for specihc performance, the purpose oi giving a permission, the Court has to initiaily come to the conclusion of considering the nature of the agreement and also the amount which is involved and also to consider whether any direction can be given or not to deposit the balance sale consicleration to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation that has been made in the plairrt.

17. The law is being settled that it is sufhcient the plaintiff makes an averment that he is readv and wiliing to perform his part of contract. It is also further settled that the plaintiff actually need not tender or deposit the money, except when so directed by the Court. The direction to deposit the money is as a matter ol exception, the general rule being that there is no necessit5r of the money deposited in order to prove one's own rt:adiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. F\rrther the direction envisaged by the explanation as a measure 23 C.R.P. No.2218 oJ2O79 of exception cannot be understood as one at the inception stage of the suit for purposes of registering the plaint and entertaining the suit.

18. This exception does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue a direction for deposit of balaace consideration even at the inception stage of the proceedings i.e., at the inception stage of the proceedings and as the law permits that unless an averment as to in respect of readiness and willingness has to be made, there is no necessity to deposit the money into the Court at the time of presentation. It is also placed before this Court that there is no specific procedure being prescribed by the High Court by way of any Administrative Circular directing the tria,l Courts to insist for deposit of the amounts or to insist for giving any undertaking to be fr.led by way of affidavit or any writing in the absence of any such specilic Circulars or the procedure does not prescribe or provide any rule for the same. ) i 24 C.R.P. No.2218 012019

19. In such circumstiu-ices, the Court Lrt:low insisting upon the parties to hle an affidavit ol undertaking aflldavi t or er Memo in the form of ar-r undt:rtaking is not correct procedure. In view of settled legal proposition of law-, the Court only has to see that there is any averment made as to the plaintiff showing readiness and willingness 1n performing their part of contract which alone would suffice.

20. Considering the above decisions cited and the law laid down, this Court is of the opinion that the permission which is said to have been granted by taking into consideration the undertaking of the plaintiffs as a request for seeking permission and insisting or directing the petitioners to deposit the amount appears to be impermissible under law and even nothing has been placed by aly of the parties before this Court that there 1S any such administrative directions or any circulars other than the law laid down in the provisions enacted under tlre Specific . Relief Act. Even otherwise, any tr;:,p;r 25 NNR) C.R.P. No.2Z18 012019 circular issued cannot go against and contrary to the provision of law which is impermissible. As such, the permission given by the Court below being impermissible under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

21. Resultalt1y, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the docket orders dated 01.07.20L9 and

15.07.2019 and the petitioners/plaintiffs shall abide by the undertaking given by them before the tria-l Court about their willingness to perform part of the contract by depositing the sa-le consideration as arrd when directed by the Court as provided under law. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to withdraw the arnount which was deposited by the petitioners/plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) RAO NANDIKONDA To,

1. The XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

2. One CC to Ms. Pratusha Boppana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] -

4. 11 LR Copies 5. The UnCer Secretary, Union of lndia lv,linistry of Law, Justice and Company 6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association 'Library, High Court for the Affairs, New Delhi State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

7. Two CD Copies g- HIGH GOIJRT DATED:1 511012025 ( f.< t. I ORDER CRP.No.2218 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRP l lrtE sa4 6 04 ti0t/ a5 ( * l' ,i 1.-'i l,,'