THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3684 of 2010 Date:13.12.2010 Between: Chokkakula Simhadri (died) Cokkakula Srinivasa Rao and others. ………..Petitioners. And Potupureddi Sanyasayya (died) Potupureddi Sarveswara Rao and others. ……….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3684 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents. The decree for specific performance has been passed on 17.6.2005 directing the respondents/defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property, after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.900/-, within three months from the date of decree. But the respondents/defendants did not execute the sale deed within three months as directed under the decree. Thereupon, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed Execution Petition on 24.2.2006 and the Court took objections to register E.P on the ground that the balance of sale consideration of Rs.900/- was not deposited, for which the revision petitioner represented that he could deposit the balance of sale consideration, after numbering the E.P. The E.P was subsequently numbered. Subsequently, respondents/defendants made their appearance and contended that the E.P is not maintainable on the ground that the balance of sale consideration was not deposited and also that no petition was filed seeking enlargement of time under Section 148 of C.P.C or a petition seeking permission to deposit the balance of sale consideration was filed by the revision petitioner. The learned Court below, considering the submissions made by the respondents/defendants, dismissed the E.P as not maintainable. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that the revision petitioner/decree holder deposited the balance of sale consideration in E.P No.276 of 2006 in O.S.No.373 of 1998 on 13.11.2008 and it is evidenced from the certified copy of the ledger extract for the year 2008-2009. Whereas, the E.P was dismissed by the Executing Court on 30.1.2009. Obviously, therefore the impugned order has been passed by the learned Court below without noticing the fact that the revision petitioner/decree holder deposited the balance of sale consideration on 13.11.2008 and the order being factually incorrect is liable to be set aside in this revision and accordingly it is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition, is, therefore allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:13.12.2010 mrb