The requirement of continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance must be established from the time of agreement to the decree, and mere later deposit does not inherently prejudice the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.12.2024 allowing IA No.187 of 2024 in OS No.15 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni filed under Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff seeking permission to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. The petitioner is defendant. The suit was filed for specific performance. The plaintiff pleaded that balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- is due and the plaintiff was ready and willing to make the deposit of the amount if the Court so directs. At the stage of the arguments, the plaintiff came up with the petition.

3. The petition was opposed by the defendant/respondent by filing counter, mainly stating that the petitioner approached 8 years after filing of the suit and there are no bona fides in filing the petition and it is just an attempt to fill the latches.

4. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court allowed the petition stating that the Court had no occasion to direct the deposit of the balance amount pending the suit and moreover the defendant also had not filed any memo to direct the plaintiff to deposit the amount and if such a memo had been filed, the Court could have directed the plaintiff to deposit the amount and then if the plaintiff failed to do so, the Court could have drawn the adverse inference, but no such step had been taken by the defendant immediately after filing the written statement, and therefore the defendant cannot take objection for permitting the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount in Court. The Trial Court further observed that it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and that such mere deposit cannot fill up the lacuna, if any, in the case of the plaintiff. It was further recorded that the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout which includes filing of the suit and thus, the Court shall examine the above aspect and take into consideration all the facts and circumstances while deciding the main suit, including the fact of filing the petition at the stage of arguments and deposit of balance sale consideration at that stage and therefore, permission to deposit the balance sale consideration would not cause any prejudice to the defendant.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that such permission would cause prejudice to the defendant by filling up the lacuna in not depositing the amount at the time of filing the suit or at any time thereafter, before the witness was examined on this aspect or before such a point was raised in the arguments. He further submitted that it is settled law that readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioner shall exist from the date of the agreement till the date of passing of the decree, but permission to deposit the balance amount at the fag end of the trial would definitely cause prejudice to the defendant.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (D) through LRs. v. Motilal (D) through LRs. , 2009 (5) CTC 365 , wherein it was held as follows :

"Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates the discretionary relief of specific performance of the contract can be granted only in the event the plaintiff not only makes necessary pleadings but also establishes that he had all along been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Such readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is not