SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(AP) 1049

VAMAN RAO
Mandavilli Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
Baratam Vykuntarao – Respondent


VAMAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam dated 18-8-1999 passed in un-numbered I. A. filed in O. S. No. 110 of 1996.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for both sides agreed that the petition may be heard and disposed of on merits at the admission stage.

( 4 ) CURIOUSLY the I. A. in which the impugned order is passed does not seem to have been numbered in the Court below. It is difficult to appreciate why it was not numbered.

( 5 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff decreeholder in O. S. No. 110 of 1996. A decree in her favour was passed for specific performance of contract of sale of certain property. The decree provided that the plaintiff-decreeholder shall pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- within a period of 15 days and thereupon the defendants-judgment-debtors shall execute the registered sale deed within a month.

( 6 ) IT appears that the decree-holder (Plaintiff) was unable to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- as directed under the decree and he accordingly filed the said I. A. for extension of time on 10-8-1999 i. e. , within 15 d











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top