THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 666 OF 2011 Dated:11-07-2014 Between:
G. Satyanarayana Reddy ... PETITIONER AND B. Ravikiran .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 666 OF 2011 ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No. 263 of 2004 in the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 02-05-2008 after contest. The petitioner filed CCCA No. 219 of 2008 before this Court against the judgment and decree. The petitioner has also filed I.A No. 791 of 2008 before the trial Court under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act with a prayer to rescind the contract. The reason pleaded by him was that though the trial Court fixed one month’s time for deposit of the balance of sale consideration, the same was not deposited within that time.
The respondent filed a counter opposing the I.A. He stated that non-payment of the amount within four weeks was on account of the delay in furnishing the certified copy by the Court and in that view of the matter, I.A No. 762 of 2008 was filed on 05-06-2008 seeking extension of time. It was also mentioned that the amount has since been deposited. During the course of arguments of the I.A, it was pleaded that in CCCAMP No. 588 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in CCCA No. 219 of 2008, stay of execution of the decree was granted. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 07-12-2010. Hence, the revision.
Heard Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is, no doubt, true that the trial Court fixed time of one month, for deposit of the balance of consideration, by the respondent. The fact, however, remains that the amount was not deposited on account of non-availability of the certified copy. Even before the petitioner filed the application under Section 28 of the Act, the respondent filed I.A No. 762 of 2008 for extension of time and in fact, made the deposit of the amount.
The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
[1]
Court in Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh . In that case, the decree holder failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. Further he did not file application for extension of time. It was not even mentioned that any appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor. The facts of the present case are substantially different. Much before the petitioner thought of filing the application under Section 28 of the Act, the respondent filed I.A No. 762 of 2008 on 05-06-2008. Added to that, the petitioner obtained stay of execution of the decree by the time the I.A was taken up for hearing. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of the I.A by the trial Court.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11th July, 2014 ks
[1] 92009) 8 SCC 766