Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K SREENIVASA REDDY
Gunipati Adikesavulu, (Died) His Lr. – Appellant
Versus
Pandheti Raghupathi Raju, S/o. Rama Raju – Respondent
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 1st 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 1st 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 1st petitioner/original d
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 e....
The court ruled that a plaintiff seeking specific performance is not required to deposit balance sale consideration at the suit's inception, emphasizing the necessity of assessing readiness and willi....
Late deposit of balance sale consideration was justified under the circumstances, observing procedural compliance and bona fide actions of the decree holder.
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
Point of Law : Provisions of section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in light of the provisions of Order XX Rule, 12A of the CPC, and it was held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A mand....
A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
