L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the judgment-debtors 4 and 5 in E. P. No. 128 of 1994 in O. S. No. 12 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, aggrieved by the order, dated 11-3-2002.

( 2 ) THE sole respondent herein filed o. S. No. 12 of 1979 for specific performance for an agreement of sale, dated 19-9-1976 against three persons, who are parties thereto (Defendants 1 to 3) and the appellants herein. It was pleaded that the defendants 1 to 3 have borrowed two sums, namely, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- from the respondent, by executing two promissory notes and with a view to discharge the liability thereunder, they executed an agreement of sale, to convey the suit schedule property for a consideration of rs. 40,000/ -. The first appellant is said to have purchased part of the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 27-3-1978 and the second appellant purchased the remaining part of it through a sale deed, dated 1-4-1982, therefore, they were impleaded as defendants 4 and 5.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit on 31 -3-1982, and granted relief of refund of the consideration. The relief of specific performances was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the relief of specific performance, the respondent filed a. S. No. 1565 of 1984 before this Court, the appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 29-11-1993 and the relief of specific performance was granted. L. P. A. No. 100 of 1994 filed against the judgment in A. S. No. 1565 of 1984 was dismissed on 15-10-1997. Thereby, the suit stood decreed, as prayed for.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed E. P. No. 128 of 1994 for executing the decree. Judgment- debtors 1 to 3 remained ex parte. The appellants herein were set ex parte on 10-4-2000 on account of their non- appearance. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to execute the sale deed and various orders came to be passed in the process. The appellants herein filed c. M. A. Nos. 1838, 2228, 2349 and 3477 of 2000 and C. P. P. No. 2571 of 2000 in this court challenging the orders passed in the e. P. Through a common order, dated 17-7-2001, this Court set aside all the orders passed in the E. P. culminating in the execution of sale deed. The executing Court was directed to give an opportunity to the appellants and to pass fresh orders. On such demand, the Executing Court allowed the e. P. , through the order under appeal.

( 5 ) SRI B. V. S. Sivarama Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree passed in O. S. No. 12 of 1979 was conditional, in that, the respondent was required to deposit balance of consideration within one month from the date of decree in a. S. No. 1565 of 1984 and the said condition has not been complied with so far. He submits that the decree was not executable without compliance of that condition and there was no justification for the executing court in passing the order under appeal. He contends that even assuming that there is an executable decree, there was non- compliance with the provisions of Rule 34 of order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "c. P. C. ") since the appellants were not furnished with the copy of the draft sale deed. He further contends that the executing court has treated as valid, the sale deed executed by it before this Court passed orders in C. M. A. Nos. 1838 of 2000 and batch and such a course of action is impermissible. He relied upon several judgments in respect of his contention.

( 6 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount payable by the defendants 1 to 3 to the respondent herein exceeded the consideration under the agreement of sale and in that view of the matter, there was no necessity to pay any further amount. He contends that the objection in this regard can be raised, if at all, by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and not by the appellants herein. As to the allegation of non-compliance with Rule 34 of order 21 CPC, the learned counsel submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document