( 1 ) C. R. P. NO. 92 of 2002 is filed by the second respondent in E. P. No. 46 of 1999 against the order dated 17-09-2001 in e. P. No. 46 of 1999 in O. S. No. 319 of 1972 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil judge, Parchur.

( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 2446 of 2002 is also filed by him against the order dated 17-09-2001 of the same Court in I. A. No. 269 of 1999 in o. S. No. 319 of 1972.

( 3 ) SINCE both the revision petitions relate to the same transaction and in the same suit, the revision petitions are clubbed and this common order is passed.

( 4 ) THE second respondent in C. R. P. No. 92 of 2002 filed O. S. No. 319 of 1972 against the third respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26-03-1972 and obtained a decree on 12-01-1977. The first appeal covered by a. S. No. 11 of 1977 preferred by the revision petitioner and the second appeal covered by s. A. No. 78 of 1999 preferred by him before the High Court of A. P. were dismissed and the decree became final.

( 5 ) AS per the terms of the decree, the judgment-debtors have to execute a sale deed in favour of the decree holder, on payment of the balance sale consideration by him. The judgment debtors did not execute the sale deed after the disposal of the second appeal also. Therefore, the legal representative of the decree holder filed e. P. No. 46 of 1999 praying to direct the revision petitioner to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property. The revision petitioner resisted the execution petition on the sole ground that it is barred by limitation. The Execution Court after hearing the contentions of bottn parties allowed the execution petition as prayed for through its order dated 17-09-2001.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the Execution petition the revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 269 of 1999 under Section 28 of the specific Relief Act praying to rescind the contract dated 26-03-1972 and to restore the suit property to him. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court, in view of the order passed in E. P. No. 46 of 1999.

( 7 ) THE revision petitioner purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 15-04-1972 from the Judgment debtor which was subsequent to the date of suit agreement. The first Judgment debtor did not contest the matter throughout and failed to succeed.

( 8 ) THE revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court in E. P. No. 46 of 1999 preferred C. R. P. No. 92 of 2002 and also preferred C. R. P. No. 2446 of 2002 against the order in I. A. No. 269 of 1999 filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract dated 26-03-1972.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the decree holder did not take any steps to get the decree executed the contract of sale dated 26-03-1972 is liable to be rescinded and further submitted that as the E. P. is barred by limitation, it is liable to be dismissed.

( 10 ) IN the light of the contentions raised by both parties the following are the points for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the E. P. No. 46 of 1999 filed by the decree holder is beyond the period of limitation? (2) Whether the agreement of sale dated 26-03-1972 is liable to be rescinded? (3) To what relief?

( 11 ) POINT No: 1: the decree holder obtained the decree in o. S. No. 319 of 1972 on 12-01-1977 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26-03-1972. As per the terms of the decree, the revision petitioner was directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the decree holder. The revision petitioner preferred A. S. No. 11 of 1997 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and it was dismissed on 31-08-1988. He also preferred S. A. No. 78 of 1989 before the High court of Andhra Pradesh and it was dismissed by the High Court on 16-06-1997. Subsequently, the decree holder filed e. P. No. 46 of 1999 on 20-10-1998 by depositing the balance sale consideration with interest, after obtaining an order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document