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 willingness without premature monetary conditions.

ORDER:

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders of the learned XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, R.R. District at Kukatpally vide S.R.No.5990 of 2019 in O.S.No.210 of 2019 wherein the learned Judge permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration amount into the credit of the suit with immediate effect and subsequently on request, the time was extended and further time was granted from 03.07.2019 to 11.09.2019 for plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking a relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.02.2002 with Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2005 executed by and between defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein on one hand and plaintiffs on the other, in the capacity of vendors and vendees. In addition to the above relief, plaintiffs as consequential reliefs, also seek declaration as null and void of various documents executed by the defendants clandestinely and in collusion with each other so as to defeat the rights of the agreement of sale read with MOU.

3. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that at the very inception of the plaint perfunctorily and without considering the legal position, the Court below has permitted the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration vide docket order dated 15.06.2019 i.e., even before the subject suit came up for the first time and much less even before the respondents had entered appearance.

4. It is further contended that even though the petitioners made an attempt to apprise the legal position on 19.06.2019 by citing the applicable case law and after hearing the arguments on the said issue at length, the Court below posted the matter to 01.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 in tandem for orders and it is further contended that the learned Judge vide docket order dated 15.07.2019 on the said issue with adverting to either to the arguments or the case law as cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed contending that the said direction by way of permission given by the learned Judge is against the provisions of law and equality in fair play. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the deposit of balance sale consideration at such a preliminary stage of the suit is against the principles of equity and good conscience, having regard to heavy sums of monies belonging to the petitioners would be locked up.

6. It is also further contended that regarding the direction to deposit of balance sale consideration should sparingly be used considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that too, if the Court below comes to a conclusion that, it is necessary to advance the cause of justice, that being the position, the impugned order could not have been passed by the learned Judge at very inception of the plaint. It is also contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the trial of the subject suit had itself had not yet commenced and notices as such are still in course of transmission to few of the respondents. The learned Judge as such ought not to have passed the impugned order at such an inception of the plaint, hence prayed to set aside the said order and by allowing the civil revision petition.

7. Having responded to the notices issued by this Court a