1. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B. Nagi Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy in these two revisions, and the fact that parties to both are same, they can be disposed of by this common order. Before the points that arise in these revisions are stated, the circumstances which led to their filing should be noted.

3. Petitioners in these two revisions are defendants in O.S.No.535 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit was brought by the respondent (plaintiff) for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.08.1993 in respect of certain immovable property said to have been executed by the petitioners in his favour. Hereinafterwards for convenience the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The said suit ended in an ex parte decree dated 31.07.2004 passed by the aforesaid court as trial court. That decree became final. In the said decree the trial court directed the defendants to execute registered sale deed in pursuance of the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the latter within 45 days from the date of decree. The other clauses in the decree relate to deposit of balance sale consideration by the plaintiff in the trial court and further stipulate that if defendants fail to execute and register the sale deed as per the agreement and terms of the decree the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of court.

5. As already mentioned the date of decree is 31.07.2004. While matters stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application E.A.No.212 of 2008 along with Execution Petition (EP) (subsequently registered as E.P.No.71 of 2008) on 23.04.2008 i.e. nearly four years after the decree for depositing the balance sale consideration. The said E.P.No.71 of 2008 was again filed in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was also acting as the executing Court and this is important. The plaintiff also filed another application E.A.No.213 of 2008 in E.P.No.71 of 2008 to condone the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration. From the certified copies of the EAs which are filed by defendants, it is seen that the Superintendent of the executing court put up an office note in E.A.No.213 of 2008 for condoning the delay sought for by the plaintiff in depositing the balance sale consideration.

6. The trial court acting as executing court allowed that application by endorsement “permitted” on 03.05.2008. Similarly, in EA No.212 of 2008 filed seeking permission to deposit the remaining balance sale consideration the executing court on the same date i.e. on 03.05.2008 allowed that request again making an endorsement “permitted” indicating that it has granted permission to the plaintiff/decree holder to deposit the balance consideration in the court. No reasons have been recorded in the above E.As by the executing court for passing above orders and in fact no notice was also ordered in the said applications to defendants.

7. Defendants have filed CRP No.4483 of 2010 questioning the order condoning the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration in E.A.No.213 of 2008 in E.P.No.71 of 2008 and similarly they filed CRPNo.4485 of 2010 questioning the grant of permission to the plaintiff for deposit of balance sale consideration.

8. The main contention of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar which is raised as the first point in these revisions is that the court which passed the decree alone can grant extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration if the time for depositing it in terms of a decree granted in a specific performance suit has expired. He says that the executing court has no such power and even if the trail court acts as an executing court also it cannot grant such extension on execution side. In the present case, Sri Suresh