THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4458 of 2010 Dated:20.07.2011 Between: Perumalla Kasirao .. Petitioner And Sure Venkata Ramesh .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4458 OF 2010 ORDER: This Court is sorry to say that one hardly comes across perverse, if not absurd order, similar to the one which is the subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent entered into an agreement, with the petitioner on 30.12.2006 to purchase an item of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,03,90,000/-. An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid as advance. The respondent filed O.S.No.65 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole, for refund of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- said to have been spent for reclamation of the land. Here itself, it may be noted that there is no mention in the agreement that the possession of the property was delivered to the respondent. The respondent filed I.A.No.525 of 2007 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and got an order of attachment before judgment of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement, stating that there exists a first charge. The petitioner furnished security in the form of bonds for the suit amount. The petitioner filed I.A.No.123 of 2010 with a prayer to permit him to deposit the suit amount and to enable him to take back the security bonds furnished by him in compliance with the orders in I.A.No.525 of 2007. The application was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court allowed the I.A., directing the petitioner to pay Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 31.08.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The order passed by the trial Court runs into five typed pages and is comprised in eight paragraphs. Upto paragraph No.5, the order, running into four pages, is devoted to mention the facts of the case. The discussion on the merits of the I.A., and the conclusion of the Court is found in paragraph No.7, which reads as under: “In this case when the defendant is ready to deposit the suit amount, I am unable to understand why the plaintiff is insisting for specific performance of the agreement of sale. As per him, the defendant is not having title over the property. In these circumstances, it is better to direct the defendant to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs.40,00,000/- towards advance amount + Rs.5,00,000/- towards reclamation charges and the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- towards costs of the suit etc.,) which will meet the ends of justice”. The first two sentences of this paragraph are totally irrelevant for the purpose of I.A. The left over sentence represents the discussion as well as the conclusion on the obligation of the petitioner to deposit the amount. It is just ununderstandable as to how the Court required the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,00,000/-, when the suit claim itself is for Rs.20,00,000/- + interest + reclamation charges. Even if the suit was to have been decreed as it stands now, the obligation would not have exceeded to Rs.28,00,000/-. Further, when the possession was not delivered to the respondent, it is not known as to how the respondent claimed reclamation charges. The whole approach of the trial Court was perverse, irrelevant, and out of context. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing that as and when the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- the security bonds furnished by him in compliance with the orders in I.A.No.525 of 2007 shall be returned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:20.07.2011 KH