THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.5929, 5930 & 5489 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.5929 of 2009 is filed questioning the docket order dated 7.10.2009 in I.A.No.803 of 1999 in I.A.No.289 of 2009 in O.S.No.30 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking extension of conditional order passed in I.A.No.289 of 2009 dated 30.9.2009 for a period of one month, was dismissed. C.R.P.No.5930 of 2009 is filed questioning the docket order dated 7.10.2009 in I.A.No.804 of 1999 in I.A.No.851 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking extension of conditional order passed in I.A.No.851 of 2008 dated 30.9.2009 for a period of one month, was dismissed. C.R.P.No.5489 of 2009 is filed questioning the docket order dated 7.10.2009 in I.A.No.851 of 2009 in O.S.No.30 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of contract of sale agreement dated 9.2.1995 was allowed. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondent is defendant. Petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.30 of 1999 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.2.1995. It appears, while decreeing the suit, the amount required to be deposited by the plaintiff was not indicated. However, an E.P. was filed by the plaintiff seeking execution of the decree. At that time, the respondent-defendant filed application I.A.No.851 of 2009 seeking for rescission of contract since the petitioner failed to deposit the money as per the terms of the decree. Though the Court below dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 30.9.2009, however, directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,53,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum on or before 7.10.2009, failing which the defendant is entitled for rescission of contract under the agreement of sale dated 9.2.1995. It appears, plaintiff did not deposit the amount as directed by the Court below and filed applications I.A.Nos.803 and 804 of 2009 for extension of time for depositing the amounts. The Court below, dismissed the said applications and consequently allowed I.A.No.851 of 2008 filed for rescission of contract of sale agreement vide order dated 7.10.2009. Hence these CRPs. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The sum and substance of the case is that since the petitioner did not deposit the amounts within the stipulated time, I.A.Nos.803 and 804 of 1999 were filed for extension of time and the same were dismissed by order dated 7.10.2009. Consequentially, the conditional order passed in I.A.No.851 of 2008 on 30.9.2009, which was filed for rescission of contract, was restored vide order dated 7.10.2009. Now the learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner may be given one week’s time for depositing the entire amount to the credit of the suit. In view of the same, petitioner is granted one week time from the date of receipt of this order, for depositing the entire amount to the credit of the suit. On such deposit, the applications stand restored. However, the orders passed and the deposit of amounts will not have any bearing on the merits of appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2010 purported to have been filed by the defendant and pending before the learned District Judge. The deposit of the amounts shall be subject to the result of the said appeal. Accordingly, the CRPs are disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 14.7.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.5929, 5930 & 5489 of 2009 14.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.Nos.5929, 5930 & 5489 of 2009 Date: 14th July, 2010 Between: P.Krishnaiah .. Petitioner in all the CRPs And N.V.Ramanaiah .. Respondent in all the CRPs