Arising from the order dated 05.06.2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in E.A.No.525 of 2001 in E.P.No.70 of 2000 in O.S.No.250 of 1989, this Civil Revision Petition focuses on the powers of the executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Facts germane to this adjudication: The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.250 of 1989 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.10.1987 executed by the petitioners. The said suit was decreed on 14.07.1994 directing the petitioners to execute a sale deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of the plaint schedule property within three months and if they failed to do so, the first respondent was given the liberty to get the sale deed executed through due process of law. The first respondent had to pay a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- as per the terms of the agreement. Out of the same, admittedly he had paid only Rs.43,000/-by the date of institution of the suit and the balance of Rs.67,000/- remained outstanding. The first respondent filed E.P.No.70 of 2000 on 31.01.2000 seeking execution of the aforestated decree. He died thereafter and his legal representatives, respondents 2 to 6, were brought on record. The petitioners filed I.A.No.871 of 2001 in O.S.No.250 of 1989 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1963') seeking rescission of the agreement of sale on the ground that the decree holder had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration and obtain execution of the sale deed within the three month period stipulated in the decree dated 14.07.1994. However, the trial Court by order dated 02.09.2004 dismissed the said application, leading to the filing of C.R.P.No.1878 of 2005 before this Court. By order dated 20.09.2005 this Court dismissed the C.R.P. confirming the order of the trial Court.

Simultaneously, the petitioners filed an application in E.A.No.525 of 2001 in E.P.No.70 of 2000 under Section 47 CPC seeking dismissal of the E.P. It was the case of the petitioners that the E.P. was not maintainable on three grounds, viz., that it was not filed after the expiry of the three month period stipulated in the decree, no notice was ordered under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and thirdly, no calculation memo was filed along with the draft sale deed indicating as to how the amount of Rs.57,785/- was arrived at by the decree holder. The petitioners contended that the decree holder should have deposited the balance sale consideration along with interest, which was not done and on the other hand, he had deposited the sum of Rs.57,785/-only upon the direction of the Court, which fell far short of the actual balance consideration along with interest payable by that date. Urging these grounds the petitioners sought dismissal of the E.P. By order dated 05.06.2006 the executing Court allowed the execution petition itself while passing an order in the E.A. It held that the present decree holders were entitled to get the regular sale deed executed after depositing the balance sale consideration along with interest at 24% per annum from 19.11.1987 and on such deposit, if the petitioners failed to execute the sale deed the decree holders were given the liberty to obtain the sale deed as per law. Thirty days time was given to the decree holders to deposit the balance amounts due as aforestated and obtain the sale deed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC. By order dated 15.09.2006, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the aforestated order. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. Be it noted that after the conclusion of the hearing in the case it came to light that the Office had misplaced the Vakalat filed by Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad for respondents 2 to 5. The subsequent Vakalat filed by him for respondent 6 was the only on