S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated April 26,1991 passed in I. A. No. 926 of 1985 in O. S. No. 67 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Machilipatnam. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit and the respondents are the defendants. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants .

( 2 ) ON 19-7-1970 the parties entered into an agreement for sale of an extent of ac. 00. 90 cents situated in Pagolu village for a consideration of Rs. 12,150/ -. Under the said agreement, the plaintiffs were handed over possession of the said property. On 20th August, 1974, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, which was decreed on 12-9-1977. The decree provided inter alia that the balance of sale consideration payable under the agreement for sale with interst at 12% per annum from 19-7-1970 to 20th july, 1977, be paid within three months from the date of decree and on deposit of the said consideration, after measuring the land in question, the plaintiffs would be entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered in their favour. The amount was deposited pursuant to the decree. The defendants issued a notice dated 26-4-1985 for the deposit of the consideration pursuant to the decree. The plaintiffs gave a reply taking the plea that the amount was already paid to the defendants. On those facts, the defendants filed I. A. No. 926 of 1985 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act in the said suit to rescind the contract for sale of the suit property and for restoration of possession to the defendants. The plaintiffs resisted the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable in law and on facts.

( 3 ) THE material facts were not disputed by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs gave particulars of the payment of sale consideration made by them to the defendants.

( 4 ) NO oral evidence was led by the parties. However, the defendants marked exs. A-1 to A-3. Ex. A-1 is the notice dated 26-4-1985 issued by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Ex. A-2 is the reply notice dated 13-5-1985 sent by the plaintiffs to Ex. A-1. Ex. A-3 is the certified copy of the decree dated 12-9-1977 in O. S. No. 67 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plea of payment of the balance amount of consideration by the plaintiffs to the defendant pursuant to the decree was not correct and that the plaintiffs committed default in complying with the terms of the decree and that they were never ready to perform their part of the contract in terms of the decree and accordingly rescinded the contract for sale of the suit land and further directed the plaintiffs to deliver to the defendants along with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- for each fasli year from July 20, 1977 and thus allowed the petition on 26th April, 1991. The validity of this order is assailed by the plaintiffs in this Civil Revision Petition, as stated above.

( 6 ) SRI. M. R. K. Chowdary, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petition was not maintainable in law as it was barred by limitation and therefore, the order under revision suffers from error of jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that the order under revision be set aside. Sri. Ramanarayana, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents, contends that the application was not barred by limitation firstly because Article 137 of the limitation Act is not applicable and secondly because the cause of action accrued to the defendants when they came to know of the "intention of the plaintiffs not to comply with the decree of the Court in the suit as they have taken incorrect plea of having deposited the amount in the reply notice (Ex. A-2) dated 13-5-1985 and from that date, the application I. A. No. 926 of 1985 was filed within two months and therefore, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document