THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1989 of 2010 BETWEEN: D.R. Garg S/o. Sri Sidda Ram, I.A.S. Occupation Government Service, R/o. 8.2.472/B1, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONER And M. Bhargava Rao, S/o. Raghunada Rao, R/o. 1400, Andover Drive, Moundelein, Illinois 60060 USA, & presently residing at H.No.9-2-293/82/PN/204, Plot # 204, Road No.13, Prashanathnagar, Jubilee Hills PO, Hyderabad-500 033. ..RESPONDENT Counsel For The Petitioner: Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Neeraja Reddy Counsel For Respondent: Sri M. Papa Reddy & Smt. Manjari S. Ganu The Court made the following order. ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.218 of 2007 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondent for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 28.05.2005, for recovery of possession over the suit schedule property and for recovery of damages for occupation thereof. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1367 of 2008 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to deposit balance of sale consideration of Rs.79,50,000/- without prejudice to his rights, to the credit of the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds. Through its order dated 27.04.2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this revision petition. Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the permission accorded to the respondent for depositing balance of sale consideration would prejudice the very plea raised by the petitioner that the latter was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. She contends that even after making an observation to the effect that the question as to whether the respondent was ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration at the relevant point of time, needs to be considered in the trial of the suit, the I.A. was allowed. She also raises an objection for the appearance made on behalf of the respondent before this Court. It is stated that though the respondent pursued the matter up to some time, he wanted to be represented by his G.P.A and father and an application filed in that regard is very much pending before the trial Court. It is urged that the G.P.A., has straight away entered appearance before this Court on behalf of the respondent. Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that not only a written statement was filed in the suit but also a counter claim was made for specific performance of agreement and it is to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and that the respondent wanted to make deposit the balance of sale consideration. She contends that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner on account of such deposit. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the amount has since been deposited by the time, the interim order passed by this Court was communicated to him. The learned counsel further submits that the sole respondent is in USA and in that view of the matter he entered appearance through his father by executing G.P.A. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the appearance entered on behalf of the respondent herein needs to be dealt with first. It may be a fact that an application was made by the G.P.A. of the respondent herein in the trial Court seeking permission under the relevant provision of law. However, if one goes by practice prevailing in this Court hardly any such permission is needed. As long as the parties are same, as arrayed in the proceedings of the trial Court, it is competent for them to pursue the proceedings directly or through the G.P.A. The rules that apply to the proceedings before this Curt do not warrant permission being accorded for that purpose. Coming to the merits of the matter, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is as to the rights that accrued to them under the agreement of sale dated 28.05.2005. The petitioner contends that time is essence of contract and the agreement stood abrogated on account of failure of the respondent to deposit balance of sale consideration within the stipulated time. The respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the petitioner refused to receive balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. As of now, the suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of agreement and the counter claim filed by the respondent for specific performance thereof, are pending adjudication. The respondent wanted to deposit the balance of sale consideration, more with a view to show compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The questions, whether a) the permission accorded for such a deposit does not prejudice the rights of either party, particularly, those of the petitioner, and b) the respondent failed to deposit the balance of consideration within the stipulated time, need to be decided after full-fledged trial. The mere fact that the amount is deposited to the credit of the suit does not have any bearing upon these questions. In the event of the suit filed by the petitioner being decreed, the very deposit would become redundant. On the other hand, if the counter claim is decreed such a deposit would become part compliance of the decree leading to a situation where the petitioner would be under obligation to execute sale deed. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed making it clear that the deposit of amount by the respondent shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the plea that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract at the relevant point of time. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, and that none of the observations made in the order under review shall be taken into account while deciding the suit. In the event of suit being decreed as prayed for, it shall be open to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the trial Court to create charge on the deposited amount for recovery of damages. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 2nd August, 2010 Js.