ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the docket order dated 04.07.2019 in E.P.No.1 of 2017 in O.S.No.241 of 2006, on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Malkajgiri, wherein the said execution petition filed by the petitioner herein (decree holder) under Order XXI Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to direct judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 to register the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration in favour of the decree holder for registration of the EP schedule property, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The facts are not in dispute. A decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the revision petitioner/

plaintiff by judgment dated 25.02.2013. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“In the result, the suit is decreed directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration. The suit is dismissed against the third defendant for the said relief. The plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.103/2006 dated 07.08.2006 passed by the Lok Adalat, at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District is collusive and not binding in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled for suit costs from D1. The third defendant is entitled for costs from the plaintiff”.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed E.P.No.1 of 2017 to direct the respondents-judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 to register the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration in his favour in respect of the EP schedule property. The trial court vide docket order dated 04.07.2019 in E.P.No.1 of 2017 dismissed the said execution petition stating that no relief can be granted to the petitioner-decree holder as prayed in the execution petition.

The docket order reads as under:

“It is brought to the notice that no balance sale consideration at all paid by DHR prior to filing of the EP. On that day, counsel for DHR came up with a prayer ready to deposit the balance sale consideration and to obtain registered sale deed. Now, in the year 2019 coming up to pay the same. In spite of objection taken at the time of filing of EP itself, no amount was paid. As no balance sale consideration is paid by DHR, within reasonable time from the decree and there is no extension of time so far to deposit the same, at present in this EP, the same cannot be considered and thereby, having no payment or sale consideration at all prior to filing and number the EP, no relief can be granted to the DHR as prayed in this EP”.

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-decree holder filed the present revision.

5. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court committed error in dismissing the EP on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay the balance sale consideration within reasonable time and had not made any attempt to deposit the amount. Further, the trial Court failed to consider that the revision petitioner had filed lodgment schedule on 13.08.2018 after filing of E.P.No.1 of 2017 seeking permission of the Court to issue challan so that the amount can be deposited. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court failed to consider that the revision petitioner is entitled to see the fruits of the decree and the same cannot be denied to him on a non-existing ground that he belatedly came forward for depositing the remaining sale consideration. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that a draft sale deed was sent to the Registrar for registration, as per docket order dated 01.05.2019 and the EP ought not to have been dismissed at this stage and the order of the trial Court is liable to set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of this court in