##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:56709

APHC010415142025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the twenty third day of December two thousand and twenty five

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No: 2148 of 2025

Between:

Jagga Mani Kishore ...Petitioner

and

Gangampalli Ravi Sekhar ...Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner:

K.Narsi Reddy

Counsel for the respondent:

T.V.Jaggi Reddy

The Court made the following:

2

C.R.P.No.2148 of 22002255: APHC:56709

O R D E R:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order dated 13.03.2025 dismissing I.A.No.117 of 2025 in

O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Penukonda filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff

under Section 148 of C.P.C. to extend the time for deposit of the balance

amount of sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) by

three months two days from 07.10.2024 to 09.01.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement

of sale dated 22.01.2021. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.09.2024

directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of

the plaintiff and in case of failure to do so, to get it done through Court

and further directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of sale

consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 07.10.2024. Thus, the trial

Court gave only 12 days time from the date of judgment for making

deposit of the balance sale consideration. Then, the plaintiff filed

I.A.No.117 of 2025 reporting ready to pay the balance sale consideration

on 09.01.2025 and sought extension of time of three months two days

i.e., from 07.10.2024. The trial Court dismissed the petition observing

that there is no plausible reason for the delay in depositing and on the

other hand, the petitioner stated the reason for non-deposit as the delay

in obtaining certified copy.

3. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed.

4. On notice to the respondent, there is appearance of the respondent

through counsel.

5. Heard Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3

C.R.P.No.2148 of 22002255: APHC:56709

6. It is admitted that no appeal was preferred against the decree in

O.S.No.27 of 2023.

7. Though, the petition is filed under Section 148 C.P.C., it is also

relevant to examine Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Section 148 C.P.C. is excerpted hereunder:

“148. Enlargement of time.—Where any period is fixed or

granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or

allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to

time, enlarge such period, [not exceeding thirty days in total,]

even though the period originally fixed or granted may have

expired.”

Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is excerpted

hereunder:

“28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the

sale or lease of immovable property, the specific

performance of which has been decreed.—(1) Where in any

suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or

lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser

or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or

such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase

money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the

vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is

made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the

court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards

the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may

require.”

8. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that abundant

discretion is given to a Court to extend or reject further time for paying /

depositing the balance amount of sale consideration. Whenever there is

discretion, the same shall be judiciously exerci