THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2644 of 2008 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this revision is whether the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, in E.A.No.5 of 2008 in E.P.No.71 of 1996 in O.S.No.81 of 1988 on its file refunding a sum of Rs.89,593/- to the plaintiff/DHr in the said suit is correct. 2. The petitioner in this revision is the defendant in the said O.S.No.81 of 1988. To decide the point the following circumstances should be noted and hereafterwards for convenience the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. It was a specific performance suit for enforcement of two agreements of sale dated 16.05.1985 relating to two items of property mentioned in the plaint schedule (each agreement covers one item). It was decreed by the above Court on 14.09.1995. The decree shows that the plaintiff already paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance sale consideration under the above agreements of sale and the Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month from the date of the decree. 3. The record shows that the plaintiff accordingly deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,886/- due on 12.10.1995 i.e. within one month in the trial Court. The defendant (petitioner herein) filed appeal AS No.2202 of 1996 in this Court against the above decree. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 01.03.2006 directing the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration with interest at 24% per annum within a period of three months from the date of the said order. It is seen that the plaintiff again deposited the balance sale consideration with interest on 27.06.2006 in the Court and this amount is shown as Rs.76,632/-. 4. The record further shows that after depositing the above amount of Rs.76,632/-, the plaintiff filed review petition ASMP No.2495 of 2006 in AS No.2202 of 1996 in this Court pleading that since he already paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,886/- on 12.10.1995 within time as ordered by the trial Court, he need not pay the amount again and since it was not brought the notice of this Court at the time of disposal of AS No.2202 of 1996 that portion of the order of this Court directing him to deposit of the balance sale consideration with interest at 24% per annum should be deleted. The defendant also filed a review petition i.e. ASMP No.2496 of 2006 pleading that since he already sold away the properties in question to third parties that should be considered by this Court and the decree granted against him should be reversed. 5. This Court disposed of both the above review petitions on 08.12.2006. Accepting the plea of the plaintiff that he already paid the balance sale consideration on 12.10.1995, this Court reviewed the order passed against him directing him to deposit the balance sale consideration with interest at 24% per annum and deleted that portion of the order from the appellate decree. Regarding the plea of the defendant in his review petition, this Court rejected it for the reasons recorded in the common order. It was thereafter for the amount of Rs.76,632/- the plaintiff filed the present E.A.No.5 of 2008 which is a cheque petition for refund of the same. The plaintiff on this amount of Rs.76,632/- calculated interest and made a total claim of Rs.89,593/- including interest. The defendant opposed that petition on various grounds. Rejecting the case of the defendant the Court below which is the executing Court also by the present impugned order dated 25.02.2008 ordered refund of the above sum of Rs.89,593/- and that is now questioned in this revision by the defendant. 6. Sri Sairam Krishna Murthy the learned counsel for the defendant took me through the decree in O.S.No.81 of 1988 and also the order of this Court passed in review CMPs and urged that the defendant is entitled to interest on the balance sale consideration to be paid by the plaintiff and since the plaintiff paid it belatedly he cannot claim refund of it and the trial Court committed an error in ordering the refund. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the above circumstances and argued that as the plaintiff already paid balance sale consideration on 12.10.1995 as per the order of the decree in the suit it was not necessary for him to pay it or deposit it again and he deposited it again to comply with the original appellate order of the Court and therefore he is entitled for refund of it and the impugned order can be said to be well founded and it does not call for interference. 7. It may be noted that the plea of the plaintiff that the balance sale consideration to be paid under the two agreements of sale was only Rs.30,886/- and that he paid it on12.10.1995 as ordered in the decree in O.S.No.81 of 1988 is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the defendant could not show any circumstance to conclude that the plaintiff did not pay it on 12.10.1995. It was basing on this circumstance this Court also in the review petition of the plaintiff modified the order in AS No.2202 of 1996 deleting the portion containing the direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration with 24% interest per annum. The impugned order then shows that the plaintiff again paid a sum of Rs.76,632/- on 27.06.2006 in the trial Court. No circumstance is brought to my notice that the plaintiff has not made the second payment. 8. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff has paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,886/- on 12.10.1995 within the time granted in the decree and he again paid the said amount with interest at 24% per annum as ordered in the appeal on 27.06.2006 which it was not necessary for him to deposit. Thus the plaintiff’s case for refund of the amount paid on 27.06.2006 can be said to be well- founded and consequently the impugned order cannot be faulted. 9. It may be noted that in the decree dated 14.09.1995 passed in the specific performance suit the plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month from that date and it does not speak of any interest. The plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration on 12.10.1995 complying with the above direction and therefore the question of payment of any interest on that amount does not arise. Then turning to the appellate order/judgment the direction given earlier to pay the balance sale consideration with interest at 24% per annum was deleted on the ground that the plaintiff already paid the balance sale consideration. As that direction is deleted it follows that the question of paying any interest to the defendant on the balance sale consideration does not arise. Thus in the above circumstances the defendant’s claim for interest has to be rejected as untenable and the impugned order cannot be faulted. 10. At the time of arguments, Sri Swamy the learned counsel for the plaintiff was specifically asked whether the amount of Rs.76,632/- deposited by the plaintiff in the Court below was invested in any Bank or it was kept in the civil Court deposits in order to know whether the said amount carried any interest as the plaintiff sought refund of Rs.89,593/- claiming the excess amount i.e. in excess of Rs.76,632/- as interest on the said amount. He could not properly explain this. However the cheque petition i.e. E.A.No.5 of 2008 has been received in the Court and the endorsement made on it shows that a sum of Rs.89,593/- for which refund is ordered is lying in deposit to the credit of the said matter. Thus it follows that the above amount has been mentioned by the lower Court’s office after verification of the above amounts. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons the point is decided against the petitioner/defendant and this revision is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 15th March 2011 CVRK