S.V. Bhatt, J.

Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Siva Reddy for respondents.

2. The legal representatives of sole plaintiff and sole defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, are the parties in the instant revision. The revision petitioner is the legal representative of 1st defendant. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed I.A.No.58 of 2011 in the Court of Additional Judge, Anantapur to grant time to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of the decree and the judgment dated 30.09.2005 in O.S.No.6 of 2000, the application was allowed on 04.01.2012. Hence, the Revision Petition at the instance of 2nd defendant/2nd respondent.

3. The application for enlargement of time was filed under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The counsel appearing for the parties have stated that Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act) is correct provision of law for relief of extension of time or similar reliefs. The quoting of wrong provision of law in I.A.No.58 of 2011 is not contested and arguments are advanced on scope, jurisdiction and discretion available under Section 28 of the Act.

4. The circumstances necessary for disposing of the revision are stated thus:

The parties are referred as plaintiff’s and the defendants.

5. Makam Suresh Babu filed O.S.No.6 of 2000 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 31.10.1994 against Araveti Venkata Lakshmamma. The plaintiff agreed to purchase Ac.0-22 cents from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per cent and the total sale consideration works out to Rs. 7,12,000/-. The defendant received Rs. 40,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. On 30.09.2005, O.S.No.6 of 2000 was decreed for specific performance of agreement of sale to an extent of Ac.0-19 cents and plaintiff was directed to pay balance sale consideration i.e., Rs. 5,68,000/- (32000 x 19= Rs. 6,08,000-Rs.40,000=Rs.5,68,000/-) within two months i.e., from 30.09.2015.

6. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

In the result, the suit is partly decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the extent of Ac.0-19 cents only with the boundaries mentioned therein in the commissioners report and the plaintiff is granted two months time to deposit the balance amount and on such deposit the defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of Ac.0-19 cents of land at the expenses of the plaintiff and if the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed within the two moths from the date of deposit, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through the process of law at the costs of the defendant. Both parties bear their own costs.

7. On the demise of sole plaintiff i.e., respondents 2 to 4 herein have come on record as the legal representatives of plaintiff. On 18.09.2010, the legal representatives of 1st plaintiff filed the instant application for enlargement of time granted in O.S.No.6 of 2000 to deposit the balance sale consideration. The case of the legal representatives of 1st plaintiff is that the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 directed deposit of Rs. 5,68,000/- on or before 30.11.2005. The plaintiff, on 29.11.2005, applied for lodgment challan to deposit Rs. 5,68,000/- as directed by the decree. The plaintiff was prevented from depositing the balance sale consideration in view of stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.6 of 2000 was granted by this Court in C.R.P.No.3987 of 2005. The lodgment challan dated 29.11.2005 by reference to stay order was returned. One K.Venugopal, S/o Narayana Swamy filed I.A.No.68 of 2005 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to come on record in O.S.No.6 of 2000. The said application for impleading K. Venugopal as defendant was dismissed by the trial Court. The said Venugopal filed C.R.P.No.3987 of 2005 against order in I.A.No.68 of 2005 and obtained stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.6 of 2000. It is matter of record that C.R.P.No.3987 of 2