ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners/Judgment Debtors and Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for respondent/Decree holder.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings in E.P.No.11 of 2023 in O.S.No.171 of 2006 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2006 against petitioners 1 and 2/defendants for specific performance of Agreements of Sale dated 11.06.2006 and 14.06.2006. Vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010, the trial Court dismissed the said suit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, respondent/plaintiff had filed Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.575 of 2010 before this Court.

During pendency of the said Appeal Suit, 1^st petitioner herein died. Therefore, her legal heirs i.e., petitioner Nos.3 to 6 were brought on record. Vide judgment dated 25.11.2022, this Court allowed the said Appeal Suit by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010 in O.S.No.171 of 2006. This Court directed petitioners to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent on receiving the balance sale consideration within two (2) months from the date of the said judgment. It is held that if petitioners fail to execute the same, respondent is at liberty to get it executed through Court of law. In consequence, the alleged gift deed executed by 1^st petitioner in favour of her husband, 2^nd petitioner, stands cancelled automatically.

4. Challenging the said judgment, dated 25.11.2022 in A.S.No.575 of 2010, petitioners filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3592 of 2023 before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 20.03.2023, the Apex Court dismissed the same. Further, vide order dated 05.03.2024, Review Petition (CIVIL) Diary No(s).36040 of 2023 filed by petitioners to review the said order dated 20.03.2023 was also dismissed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.11 of 2023 before the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition to declare the action of Executing Court in entertaining E.P.No.11 of 2023 filed by respondent/plaintiff as illegal.

5. In the present Civil Revision Petition, vide order dated 04.12.2024, on considering the contention of petitioners that respondent deposited the balance sale consideration amount without obtaining permission from either the trial Court or this Court, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.11 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners/Judgment Debtors would submit that respondent failed to pay the balance sale consideration amount within the time stipulated by this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2022 in A.S.No.575 of 2010. He would further submit that before the Executing Court, petitioners have filed Execution Application seeking stay of the proceedings in E.P. However, the Executing Court is not numbering the said E.A. though it is in order. He would also submit that petitioners have already taken steps to file an application under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’), to rescind the aforesaid agreements of sale itself. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Shyamala v.

Gundlur Masthan, [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151]

7. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would contend that petitioners did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent. Therefore, respondent filed the aforesaid E.P. to direct petitioners to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in his favour or else the executing Court may execute registered sale deed and handover the possession of the same to him. Thus, respondent did not seek extension of time granted by this Court in judgment dated 25.11.2022 in A.S.No.575 of 2010. In support of