1. The unsuccessful judgment-debtors seek to assail the order dated 19-01-2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, in E.P.No.50 of 1996 in O.S.No.33 of 1985 in the instant revision petition.

2. The respondents herein filed the E.P.No.50 of 1996 under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') to direct the judgment debtors 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 to execute the sale deed pursuant to the decree dated 11-8-1992 passed by the Court for specific performance in O.S.No.33 of 1985 after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and to put the decree holders in possession of properties covered therein. That was objected to by the second judgment debtor on the premises that when the decree directed the original defendant in the suit to execute the sale deed by 21-09-1992, the decree holders deposited the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- after a long lapse of time on 22-04-1995, although E.P. was filed in the year 1994, and that it shows that the decree holders had no money or ready cash to perform their part of the contract and that they must show the readiness for getting the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration and that they have not deposited the balance within a reasonable time and that the value of the property was more than forty lakhs and that the decree holders had no cash and so they had not deposited the amount immediately after the decree and therefore they are not entitled to the relief.

3. No evidence was adduced on either side in the E.P. After having heard either side and under the impugned order, the learned executing Court overruled those objections and ordered the next step. Inter alia in the impugned order, the learned executing Court was of the view that inasmuch as the decree did not fix any date to deposit the balance sale consideration and as after the deposit of balance sale consideration only the E.P. was numbered, the objections on the part of the judgment debtors were not tenable.

4. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, seeks to contend that inasmuch as there was unreasonable delay on the part of the decree holders in having deposited the balance sale consideration, it is a fit case for rescission of the contract and no separate application in that regard need be filed and that in the E.P. such a plea can be taken by the judgment debtors by filing their counters.

5. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel, representing the decree holders, per contra, represents that the Court has ample power to extend the time to deposit and it is a fit case where the discretion can be exercised by the Court.

6. A brief resume of facts would elucidate the contentious issue and help adjudicating the same effectively. The suit, O.S.No.33 of 1985, was filed seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 19-04-1980 by directing the defendants therein to execute a sale deed pursuant to the terms of the contract of sale after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendants were set exparte when their counsel reported no instructions. The suit was therefore decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 11- 8-1992. The decree directs the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed as per the terms of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs by 21-09- 1992 and in the event of default giving liberty to the plaintiffs to get the sale deed registered through Court on depositing the balance sale consideration and necessary registration charges in the Court. E.P. was filed on 20th June, 1994 with a prayer to direct the judgment debtors to execute the sale deed. The balance sale consideration was not paid either on or before 21-01-1992 or on the date of filing the E.P., instead was deposited on 24-02-1995. After such deposit only, the E.P. was registered and numbered. It is obvious that no date was stipulated inter alia i