THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2146 of 2009 % Dated 10.08.2010 # Sri P.Ravi Prasad Goud. …. Petitioner $ Sri P.Krishna and others. ….Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri L.V.Ramana Rao ^Counsel for Respondents : --- <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2146 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.267 of 2007 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed ex parte on 31.12.2007. It was to the effect that the petitioner shall pay the balance of consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- to the respondents within one month and if they refused to receive the amount, it shall be deposited into the Court within one month thereafter. That means by the end of February 2008, the amount should have been either paid to the respondents or deposited into the Court. The petitioner filed an E.P., for execution of the decree. He filed E.A.No.360 of 2008 under Section 148 of C.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the time stipulated for depositing of the balance of sale consideration. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 20.02.009. The same is challenged in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ready to deposit the balance of sale consideration but was prevented from doing so, on account of serious ill-health. He contends that the respondents remained ex parte not only in the suit but also in the E.A. and the executing Court ought to have shown indulgence. The suit was decreed ex parte and the petitioner was under obligation to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- to the respondents within one month from the date of decree and in case, they refuse to receive that amount, he shall deposit the same into the Court within one month thereafter. This is not a case, where the deposit could not be made on account of any factor attributable to the Court. If for any reason, the petitioner was prevented from making the deposit, within the stipulated time, he ought to have filed an application before expiry of the stipulated time. He not only failed to take any steps within the stipulated time, but also did not file the application for six months after expiry of the stipulated time. Normally, the civil Courts would be liberal in enlarging the time for making deposits or taking steps that are stipulated in a decree. The time mentioned for depositing of balance of sale consideration in a decree for specific performance however stands on a different footing. The readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit of that nature is the most important factor. The conduct of a plaintiff in such a suit must be almost above any reasonable doubt. In most of the cases, the balance of consideration is deposited into the Court itself during the pendency of the suit. In case, the amount is not paid or deposited even after the suit is decreed, a clear case comes to be established that the plaintiff was either not willing or not ready to pay the amount. That obviously will be a factor to reject the suit itself, since it would be a violation of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however left open to the petitioner to take steps for recovery of the amount paid by him to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 10.08.2010 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2146 of 2009 Date: 10.08.2010 JSU