HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.06.2025 in I.A. No.1074 of 2023 in E.P. No.63 of 2023 in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon (for short ‘trial Court’).

2. Notice has been taken out to the respondent by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 18.07.2025 and Memo of proof of service of notice was filed vide S.R. No.81228 of 2025. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the decree holder, and the respondent is the defendant in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No.129/B, situated at Koduru Village, Raghunathpally Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 03.03.2023 directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff and execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three (3) months from the date of the decree. The plaintiff filed application in I.A. No.1074 of 2023 in O.S. No.1333 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘Act’) read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of 201 days in depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- as directed in the decree dated 03.03.2023. The application was dismissed by the order dated 18.06.2025 by observing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the clear direction of the trial Court and failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time period of three (3) months from the date of the decree. It is further held that the delay of 201 days is substantial and unexplained, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner made any bona fide attempt to seek clarification of the decree; the plea appears to be an afterthought. The trial Court further held that the decree being conditional and time-bound, the non- compliance strikes at the very root of enforceability and that permitting such delay without adequate justification would encourage laxity in execution of decree and defeat the sanctity of the judicial order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 08.05.2023 to the defendant through registered post with acknowledgment due to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute sale deed. The acknowledgment due was returned unclaimed. Thus, the trial Court failed to recognise that the plaintiff has tendered the balance sale consideration to the defendant. Learned counsel further submitted that the decree dated 03.03.2025 only directs the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- and execute the sale deed within a period of three (3) months failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the decree executed through Court of law. There was no direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of three (3) months.

5. As seen from the decree dated 03.03.2025, there is no direction by the trial Court to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three (3) months. The direction was only to the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The relevant portion of the decree dated

03.03.2025 reads as under:

“...

2. That the defendant is directed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and execute a registered sale deed in his favour within three m