IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 2620 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: L. Sri Ramulu S/o L. Laxmaiah R/o Brahmanapally Village Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. A.V.C. Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its M.D.A.V. Chowdary, C-3 Ushodaya Apartments Huda Complex Saroornagar, Hyderabad 2 L. Laxmaiah ( died ) 3 L. Sukumar S/o K. Laxmaiah R/o Brahmanapally Village Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District 4 A. Ravinder S/o K. Laxmaiah R/o Brahmanapally Village Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District 5 L. Anand S/o K. Laxmaiah R/o Brahmanapally Village Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District 6 M. Bharathamma W/o Rangaiah R/o Karmanghat R.R.District 7 L. Jayamma W/o Janardhan R/o Turkayamjal R.R.District 8 T. Yadamma W/o Gopal R/o Brahmanapally R.R.District 9 A. Pochamma W/o Narsing Rao R/o Nagarjuna Sagar Nalgonda District 10 V. Suvarna W/o Narasimha R/o Brahmanapally R.R.District 11 A. Vasantha W/o Mallesh R/o Batasingaram R.R.District (2 tro 11 are Not Necesary Parties ) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.V.RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent : MR.N.SRINIVAS RAO FOR RR1 The Court made the following : C.R.P.No. 2620 of 2009 O r d e r: This revision is filed against the order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No. 2106 of 2006 in O.S.No.158 of 2000. The second defendant filed the above interlocutory application under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 CPC to rescind the agreement dated:8.8.1997, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.158 of 2000 on 20-2-2006. 2. The case of the petitioner/second defendant in the suit, was that the plaintiff, the present first respondent, filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated:8.8.1997 and that was decreed. While passing the decree, the court directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with in two months from the date of the decree, after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.11.25 Lakhs together with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.2000 till the date of payment. The plaintiff neither offered the balance of sale consideration to the defendants nor took any steps in that regard. As such the agreement of sale dated:8.8.1997 has to be rescinded. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed counter contending that he filed a petition for amendment of the decree and certain amounts were paid to third defendant; as such he could not deposit the amount into the court, till the disposal of the petition he filed for amendment. As the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the main judgment and decree, the petition is not maintainable. 4. The learned judge dismissed the petition holding that the court has not prescribed any time limit for payment of balance sale consideration and the defendants were to execute the registered sale deed within two months from the date of the judgment after receipt of balance of sale consideration with interest @ 12% per annum, but there was no stipulation of date or time for payment of the balance consideration in the decree. Therefore, the petitioner/second defendant cannot be granted any relief. 5. It is also observed by the court below that the plaintiff admitted deposit of the amount into the court only subsequent to the disposal of I.A.No.1951 of 2006 filed for amendment of decreetal amount of Rs.11.30 Lakhs to Rs.2.25 Lakhs on the ground that he has paid a sum of Rs.9.00 Lakhs under cheques in favour of the third defendant, which was dismissed on 3.12.2007 and the balance sale consideaion was deposited immediately after the disposal of the above Interlocutory application – I.A. 1951 of 2006. In spite of there being no stipulation of time, the plaintiff has deposited the amounts within the reasonable time. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ second defendant is that as the plaintiff/first respondent has not deposited the amount within the stipulated time of two months, he cannot be granted any relief and the contract has to be rescinded. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there any grounds for allowing the revision petition. 8. The operative portion of the judgment in O.S.No. 158 of 2000 reads as follows: “In the result the plaintiff’s suit is decreed, the defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the plaint schedule mentioned property in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated:8.8.197 within two months from today after receipt of the balance of sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000.00 with interest @ 15% per annum from 1.6.2000 till the date of payment to the defendants or deposit into the court, which ever is earlier. If the defendants failed to do so, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance of sale consideration with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.2000 till the date of deposit and obtain a regular registered sale deed through court according to law” 9. This order does not prescribe any time limit for the plaintiff to deposit the amount. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as two months time was granted for executing sale deed, it has to be presumed that within two months, the plaintiff has to deposit the sale consideration. This cannot be accepted at all, as the order clearly shows that the sale deed has to be executed within two months from the date of the judgment, after receipt of the sale consideration of Rs.11.25 Lakhs. It also says that in case of failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance sale consideration with interest @ 12% per annum from1.6.2000 till the date of deposit and obtain regular sale deed through the court. Thus for deposit of the amount by the plaintiff, no time limit is fixed. The contention that two months time fixed for execution of the sale deed, is the time for deposit of the amount cannot be accepted. Further more, there is another circumstance of the plaintiff filing I.A.No. 1951 of 2006 for deletion of substantial amount from the decreetal amount, as he paid Rs.9.00 Lakhs under two cheques to the third defendant and immediately after disposal of the above interlocutory application, the plaintiff has deposited the money. Further, it is not a contested suit. After framing of the issues, the defendant was never ready for cross examination of PW-1. Vexed with their conduct, a conditional order was passed on 8.11.2005 by adjourning the matter to 22.11.2005 saying that n case the defendants fail to appear and cross examine PW-1,it would be deemed that they have no interest and they would be set ex parte and next steps would be taken. On 22.11.2005 also there was no representation on behalf of the defendants; and they were set exparte and the decree was passed. Thus, the defendants never contested the suit. The present petition obviously is not at all filed with any bona fide intention. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff has relied on a decision of this Court in K. Balraj v. B.Mallaiah @ Mallesh[1] , wherein our High Court held that the court can extend the time for depositing balance sale consideration. In another decision in Sajja Chimpiraiah v. GaddamVenkata Subbaiah[2] also similar view was expressed by this court holding that time canbe extended for deposit of the balance sale consideration. In Yeshoda V. K. Nagarajan[3], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that time can be extended. 11. In the decisions Omkarnath v. Basheer [4] and Pankoj Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Manmatha Nath Vidyabhushan Bhattarjee,the finding was that time can be extended for depositing the balance sale consideration. 12. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case there was no request for extension of time by the first respondent/plaintiff. In the present case, as no time limit was specifically fixed, there was no question of requesting for extension of time. Further more, there was an interlocutory application pending for modifying the decreetal amount, and immediately after disposal of the said interlocutory application, the amount was deposited and when the court permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the amount, in the absence of any specific time by the court, it can also be held that there was implied extension of time by the court, particularly, in the circumstances of this case, about which a reference is already made. I see no merits in this revision and it accordingly liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. August 24, 2009. *BVS [1] 1996 (2) ALT 170 [2] AIR 2004 AP 528 [3] 1996 (7) Supreme 378 [4] AIR 1986 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 152