The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA MARAGANI Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER al::'1r.@=-.E=7 .,,, HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.24a6 0F 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.06.2025 in r.A. No.r 074 of 2o23in E.p. No.63 ol 2023 in o.S. No.l333 of 2022 on the file of the learned principar 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 vde S.R. No.gr22g 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.l333 of 2022 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale under Section 26 read with order vII Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.C.) in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No.l29l8, situated at Koduru Village, Raghunathpally Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated, 03.03.2023 directing the './ -rl 2 defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiffand execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffwithin 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 ofRs.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 ofany 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. \ 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court possesses inherent powers under Section 15 I of the C.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice. The ptaintiff 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 retumed unclaimed. Thus, the trial Court failed to recognise that the plaintiff has tendered the balance sale consideration to the defendant. Leamed 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 I ' i,l .. :'Si$:. ' :,&-''. I {?3.: ' ..",l . a*11 " :rytrr. 4 a o 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 tfuough 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 misintelpretation 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.l074 of 2023 in E.P. No.63 of 2023 in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 is set aside. The trial Court is direcred ro 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 sha_U be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition stand closed. SD/- DEIiU A.V.S PRASAD TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ! SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge_cum-JtVlFC, Janqaon 2. One CC to Sri Krrshna Maragini, Advocate fOpUti 3. Two CD Copies ABK/?SL I r i i-i: '-. l( )3 -.;-.: Bh; ..' i-{,J. ^ ; :.L_- {d.ffiii:r E.€c.r::' HIGH COURT DATED: 09/09/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2416 ol 2025 l i I I I i i I t .-t.\, -'.' '-' \, .$ \ &\ \ "'.'r I t; 4 I :! ALLOWING THE CRP I W \