A decree for specific performance remains executable if the decree-holder follows court permissions for deposit, despite prior non-compliance; timely objections by judgment debtors are essential to enforce rights.

ORDER :

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 12.08.2025 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2025 in E.P.No.58 of 2012 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, whereby petition filed by the respondent/decree holder seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- into the Court, was allowed by the Court below.

2. Respondent herein filed Original Suit No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet against 1^st petitioner, seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2007. After full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2011, directing the 1^st petitioner/original defendant to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of the said agreement of sale (Ex.A1) dated 22.11.2007 after receiving balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree, failing which the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to get registered sale deed executed as per law by depositing balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the Court. As 1^st petitioner/original defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, as directed in the decree, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.58 of 2012 to get the same executed through process of court, after depositing the balance amount on 21.03.2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, 1^st petitioner/defendant preferred A.S.No.723 of 2012 before this Court, wherein this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said judgment and decree. During pendency of A.S.No.723 of 2012, the respondent/decree holder filed A.S.M.P.No.1889 of 2013 in the said appeal seeking permission to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with a liberty deposit the same after disposal of the said Appeal. This Court, vide Order dated 05.08.2013, permitted the respondent/decree holder to withdraw the said amount, with a liberty to deposit the same after disposal of A.S.No.723 of 2012, and pursuant to the same, the respondent/ decree holder withdrew the said amount as per Order dated 19.1.2015 in E.A.No.81 of 2014. Subsequently, A.S.No.723 of 2012 came to be dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 01.11.2023.

3. As 1^st petitioner/original defendant died, 2^nd petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative in the E.P., as per the Order dated 28.08.2024 in E.A.No.53 of 2024. Thereafter, 3^rd and 4^th petitioners were also impleaded as his legal representatives in the E.P., as per the Order dated 06.02.2025 in E.A.No.11 of 2025.

4. Pursuant to dismissal of A.S.No.723 of 2012, the respondent/decree holder filed E.A.No.44 of 2025 in the said E.P., seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, and the same was allowed by the Court below, vide the impugned Order. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors that the respondent/decree holder failed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- within the time stipulated in the decree, and failed to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as per the terms of the decree, and therefore, the Court below erred in allowing the application vide the impugned order. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Prem Jeevan v. K.S.Venkata Raman and another , 2017(3) ALD 8 (SC) ., whereinthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.9 to 11)

“9. Reference to Order XX Rule 12-A CPC shows that in every decree of specific performance of a contract, the Court has to specify the period within which the payment has to be made. In the present case, the said period was two months from the date of the decree.

10. In a