Date on which judgment was reserved : 06.02.2026

Date on which judgment was pronounced : 24.02.2026

Date on which judgment was uuploaded

on the website of the High Court : 24.02.2026

APHC010461182025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2220/2025

Between:

1. GUNIPATI ADIKESAVULU, (DIED) HIS LR

2. GUNIPUTI KISHORE,, S/O. VENKATA NARASAIAH,

AGED 55 YEARS, JOWLI STREET, RAJAMPET, YSR

KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. GUNIPUTI SATEESH KUMAR,, S/O. LATE SUBBA

NARASIMHULU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. B -204, ELITE

AVENUE APARTMENTS, MYDUKURU ROAD,

KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, PRODDUTURU MANDAL, YSR

KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. GUNIPUTI SREEDHAR,, S/O. SUBBA NARASIMHULU,

AGED 51 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 42-494-1, NGO COLONY,

KADAPA TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. PANDHETI RAGHUPATHI RAJU, S/o. Ra ma Raju, aged 60

years, DBN Palli, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Annamayya

District, YSR Kadapa District.

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying

that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the

High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Order dt.

12.8.2025 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2025 in E.P.No. 58 of 2012 in

O.S.No. 37 of 2008 on the file of the court of Learned Principal

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

2

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, the above named

petitioners prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with

filing of certified copy of Order dt. 12.8.2025 passed in E.A.No.44

of 2025 in E.P.No. 58 of 2012 in O.S.No. 37 of 2008 on the file of

the court of Learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Rajampet and receive the main CRP on file in the interests of

justice and to pass such

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of

all further proceedings in E.P.No. 58 of 2012 in O.S.No. 37 of

2008 on the file of the court of Learned Principal Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Rajampet, pending disposal of the main CRP

and to pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. KARNAM RAMESH

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2220 OF 2025

O R D E R:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order

dated 12.08.2025 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2025 in E.P.No.58 of

2012 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Rajampet, whereby petition filed by the

respondent/decree holder seeking permission to deposit the

balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- into the Court, was

allowed by the Court below.

2. Respondent herein filed Original Suit No.37 of 2008

on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet against 1

st

petitioner, seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement

of sale dated 22.11.2007. After full-fledged trial, the suit was

decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2011, directing the

1

st

petitioner/original defendant to execute a registered sale deed

in pursuance of the said agreement of sale (Ex.A1) dated

22.11.2007 after receiving balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from

the respondent/plaintiff within two months from the date of the

decree, failing which the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to get

registered sale deed executed as per law by depositing balance

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the Court. As 1

st

petitioner/original

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

4

defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, as directed

in the decree, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.58 of

2012 to get the same executed through process of court, after

depositing the balance amount on 21.03.2012. Aggrieved by the

aforesaid judgment and decree, 1

st

petitioner/defendant preferred

A.S.No.723 of 2012 before this Court, wherein this Court granted

interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said

judgment and decree. During pendency of A.S.No.723 of 2012,

the respondent/decree holder filed A.S.M.P.No.1889 of 2013 in

the said appeal seeking permission to withdraw the deposited

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with a liberty deposit the same after

disposal of the said Appeal. This Court, vide Order dated

05.08.2013, permitted the respondent/decree holder to withdraw

the said amount, with a liberty to deposit the same after disposal

of A.S.No.723 of 2012, and pursuant to the same, the respondent/

decree holder withdrew the said amount as per Order dated

19.1.2015 in E.A.No.81 of 2014. Subsequently, A.S.No.723 of

2012 came to be dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated

01.11.2023.

3. As 1

st

petitioner/original defendant died, 2

nd

petitioner

was impleaded as his legal representative in the E.P., as per the

Order dated 28.08.2024 in E.A.No.53 of 2024. Thereafter, 3

rd

and

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

5

4

th

petitioners were also impleaded as his legal representatives in

the E.P., as per the Order dated 06.02.2025 in E.A.No.11 of 2025.

4. Pursuant to dismissal of A.S.No.723 of 2012, the

respondent/decree holder filed E.A.No.44 of 2025 in the said E.P.,

seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration of

Rs.4,00,000/-, and the same was allowed by the Court below, vide

the impugned Order. Challenging the same, the present Civil

Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners/judgment debtors that the respondent/decree holder

failed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-

within the time stipulated in the decree, and failed to show his

readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as per

the terms of the decree, and therefore, the Court below erred in

allowing the application vide the impugned order. The learned

counsel placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down

in Prem Jeevan v. K.S.Venkata Raman and another

1

, wherein

1

2017(3) ALD 8 (SC).

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

6

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.9 to

11)

“9. Reference to Order XX Rule 12-A CPC shows

that in every decree of specific performance of a contract, the

Court has to specify the period within which the payment has to

be made. In the present case, the said period was two months

from the date of the decree.

10. In absence of the said time being extended, the

decree-holder could execute the decree only by making the

payment of the decretal amount to the judgment-debtor or

making the deposit in the Court in terms of the said decree. In the

present case, neither the said deposit was made within the

stipulated time nor extension of time was sought or granted and

also any explanation has been furnished for the delay in the

making of the deposit. No doubt, as contended by the learned

counsel for the decree-holders, relying on judgment of this Court

in Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara, (1994) 2 SCC 642 = AIR 1994

SC 1699, in an appropriate case the Court which passed the

decree could extend the time as envisaged in the Specific Relief

Act, 1963. In the present case no such steps have been taken by

the decree-holders.

11. In above circumstances, the contention,

advanced on behalf of the decree-holders, respondents herein,

that unless the judgment-debtor seeks recission of the contract in

terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the decree remains

executable in spite of expiry of period for deposit, with the only

obligation on the part of the decree-holders to pay interest,

cannot be accepted.”

7. The learned counsel further contended that non-

compliance with conditions of decree by the D.Hr i.e. neither

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

7

depositing balance sale consideration within the time stipulated

nor in the manner stipulated by Court, would be deemed to be

dismissal of suit. He placed strong reliance on the decision laid

down in P.R.Yelumalai v. N.M.Ravi

2

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court held as under: (paragraph No.13)

“13. From a perusal of the judgment and decree

dated 15.02.2007 passed by the trial court, it is clear that the

period of one month granted for depositing the balance

consideration started from the date of decree. From the records it

appears that the decree was signed on 27.02.2007. Therefore,

the period of one month started from 27.02.2007 and ended on

26.03.2007. After extension of two months was granted, the last

date for depositing the amount of balance consideration fell on

26.05.2007. As the civil court was not working on 26.05.2007 and

next date i.e. 27.05.2007 was Sunday, the plaintiff buyer was to

deposit the amount on 28.05.2007, which was the reopening day.

However, there is no evidence on record to show that he made

efforts to deposit the balance consideration on 28.05.2007 or

made an application on 28.05.2007. The RO is dated 29.05.2007

and deposit was made on 29.05.2007. Thus, the plaintiff buyer

failed to comply with the decree and the suit stood dismissed

automatically.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/ decree holder would contend that this is only

redeposit of the balance sale consideration amount pursuant to

the liberty granted by this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1889 of 2013 in

2

(2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 52.

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

8

A.S.No.723 of 2012; that no objection was raised by 1

st

petitioner/original defendant when the balance sale consideration

was deposited by the respondent/decree holder in the Court on

21.3.2012; that in the decree, there is no time stipulated for

deposit of the balance amount, but the decree specifically directed

1

st

petitioner/original defendant to execute a registered sale deed

in pursuance of the agreement of sale, and only in case he fails to

do so, liberty was given to respondent/decree holder to get the

registered sale deed as per law by depositing balance amount in

the Court; that having failed to comply with the terms of the decree

and having raised no objection for deposit of the balance amount

at the first instance in the year 2012, now, the

petitioners/judgment debtors cannot raise such an objection, and

considering these aspects, the Court below rightly allowed the

petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

9. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil

Revision Petition is whether the impugned Order dated

12.08.2025 in E.A.No.44 of 2025 in E.P.No.58 of 2012 passed by

the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet

suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of

law requiring any interference of this Court?

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

9

10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The suit vide

O.S. No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajampet filed by the respondent/decree holder against 1

st

petitioner/original defendant, seeking the relief of specific

performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2007, was decreed

after full-fledged trial, vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2011,

whereby 1

st

petitioner/original defendant was directed to execute a

registered sale deed in pursuance of the said agreement of sale

(Ex.A1) dated 22.11.2007 after receiving balance amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff within two months from

the date of the decree, and in the event of his failure to do so,

respondent/plaintiff was given liberty to get registered sale deed

executed as per law by depositing balance amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- in the Court.

11. A perusal of the material on record further makes it

clear that 1

st

petitioner/original defendant failed to execute the

registered sale deed, as directed in the decree. Thereupon, the

respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.58 of 2012 for execution of

the decree through process of court, by depositing the balance

amount on 21.03.2012. It is also evident from the record that 1

st

petitioner/original defendant preferred A.S.No.723 of 2012 before

this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

10

Court below, and this Court granted interim stay of all further

proceedings pursuant to the said judgment and decree. From a

perusal of the material on record, it is further clear that

A.S.M.P.No.1889 of 2013 was filed by the respondent/decree

holder in A.S.No.723 of 2012 before this Court, seeking

permission to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

with a liberty deposit the same after disposal of the said Appeal,

and vide Order dated 05.08.2013, this Court permitted the

respondent/decree holder to withdraw the said amount, with a

liberty to deposit the same after disposal of A.S.No.723 of 2012.

Pursuant to the said Order, the respondent/decree holder filed

E.A.No.81 of 2014 in the aforesaid E.P. and as per Order dated

19.1.2015 passed in the said E.A., he withdrew the balance sale

consideration already deposited by him. Thereafter, the

respondent/decree holder filed the present application vide

E.A.No.44 of 2025 in the said E.P., after dismissal of A.S.No.723

of 2012 filed by 1

st

petitioner/original defendant, seeking

permission to deposit the balance sale consideration, which was

allowed by the Court below.

12. No doubt, Order XX Rule 12A CPC contemplates that

in every decree for specific performance of a contract, the Court

has to specify the period within which the payment has to be

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

11

made. In the case on hand, the decree does not specifically

contemplate the time within which the balance sale consideration

has to be deposited by the respondent/decree holder. A perusal

of the material on record goes to show that as view of failure on

the part of 1

st

petitioner/original defendant in executing the

registered sale deed, as directed in the decree, the

respondent/decree holder deposited the balance sale

consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- into the Court below on 21.3.2012

and filed E.P.No.58 of 2012 for execution of the decree.

Admittedly, no objection was raised by the petitioners/judgment

debtors at the time of deposit of the balance sale consideration by

the respondent/decree holder. The present application vide

E.A.No.44 of 2025 was filed in the E.P., seeking to permit him to

re-deposit the balance sale consideration pursuant to liberty

granted to him by this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1889 of 2013 in

A.S.No.723 of 2012, while permitting him to withdraw the amount

deposited by him at the first instance on 21.3.2012.

13. The facts in the present case and the facts in decision

relied on, by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Prem

Jeevan v. K.S.Venkata Raman & another case (1 supra) are

distinguishable. In the said case, the suit for specific performance

was decreed on 25.9.2008 in favour of plaintiffs directing the

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

12

defendant No.1 therein to execute a registered sale deed in favour

of plaintiffs within two months after receipt of balance sale

consideration. The cheque issued by the plaintiffs/decree holders

in the said case on 04.12.2008 for the amount in question, was

returned as not accepted by the judgment debtor, and thereafter,

the plaintiffs applied for execution. The judgment-debtors in the

said execution proceedings filed an application objecting to the

execution of decree on the ground that the amount in question

was not deposited by the decree-holders within the stipulated

time.

14. In the case on hand, having raised no objection at the

first instance at the time when the balance sale consideration was

deposited originally on 21.3.2012 and at the time of liberty being

granted by this Court in A.S.No.723 of 2012 to withdraw the

amount and redeposit the same after disposal of the appeal, the

petitioners/judgment debtors cannot object for re-deposit of the

said amount pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court.

Therefore the said decision does not render any assistance to the

case of the petitioners.

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision dated

06.03.2025 in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs and ors v V.

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

13

Rajamani and anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025), while

reiterating the directions contained in paragraph No. 42 of the

earlier judgment in Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi

reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, categorically directed inter alia all

the High Courts to issue an administrative Order or Circular,

directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the

Execution Petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and

disposed of, within a period of six months without fail. Pursuant to

the same, the High Court, on the administrative side issued

Circular No. 04 of 2025 vide ROC No. 208/SO/2025, dated

28.04.2025, directing the district judiciary to ensure that execution

petitions pending shall be decided and disposed of within a period

of six months without fail. In the case on hand, the E.P. is of the

year 2012. A.S.No.723 of 2012 was dismissed on 1.11.2023.

As observed supra, the petitioners/judgment debtors, having

raised no objection at the first instance at the time when the

balance sale consideration was deposited originally on 21.3.2012

and at the time of liberty being granted by this Court in A.S.No.723

of 2012 to withdraw the amount and redeposit the same after

disposal of the appeal, cannot now turn around and object for

redeposit, thereby protracting the execution proceedings. The trial

Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the E.P.

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

14

expeditiously in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the aforesaid decision.

16. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is,

accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this CRP shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

February, 2026.

DRK

SRK, J

CRP No.2220 of 2025

15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2220 OF 2025

24.02.2026

DRK