Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J.
Shaik Abdul Khader - Petitioner
Versus
G. Anil Dutt Kamble - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.345 of 2025
Decided On : 18-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Specific Performance
Act Referred
LIMITATION ACT : S.5
Headnote
(B) Condonation of Delay - Specific Performance - Procedural Fairness - The Court emphasized that technical defaults (e.g., filing under the wrong provision) should not defeat substantive justice where the decree has become final and the petitioner remains in possession of the property.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a decree holder in a specific performance suit, sought to condone a delay of 3358 days in depositing the balance sale consideration. The petition was initially dismissed by the Executing Court on the grounds of maintainability (due to filing under S. 5 of the Limitation Act instead of S. 28 of the Specific Relief Act) and lack of jurisdiction (holding it should be filed before the original trial court). The petitioner challenged this dismissal in revision.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to deposit the balance sale consideration, noting the respondent's admission of the petitioner's possession. It clarified that when records are transferred due to administrative bifurcation, the transferee court is the appropriate forum, and the use of a wrong section in the application does not bar the relief.
Issues: 1) Whether the Executing Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an extension application after record transfer. 2) Whether a 3358-day delay is excusable in light of the finality of the specific performance decree.
Ratio Decidendi: Technical procedural errors or the use of an incorrect statutory provision for seeking relief under the Specific Relief Act should not override the substantive right of a decree holder to fulfill the conditions of a final decree, especially when the case was transferred due to administrative action.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; delay condoned; petitioner permitted to deposit balance sale consideration with 12% interest.
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: N. Bhujanga Rao
Respondent Counsel: Police Venkat Reddy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for seeking extension of time in specific performance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding maintenance of delay condonation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. applicability of section 28 of the specific relief act over procedural limitation norms. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. jurisdictional impact of administrative district bifurcation on pending proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's final orders allowing deposit of consideration with interest. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
Renuka Yara, J.
Heard Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2024 in E.A.No.40 of 2023 (Old E.A.No.1844 of 2021) in E.P.No.1743 of 2022 (Old E.P.No.2349 of 2021) on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, wherein a petition filed seeking extenstion of time for payment of balance sale consideration ordered as per ex parte decree dated 29.12.2011 in O.S.No.371 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the decree holder in O.S.No.371 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in a suit for specific performance had obtained decree vide docket order dated 29.12.2011. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.8,10,000/- to the credit of the suit within 15 days from the date of the decree. While so, the petitioner had filed E.P.No.2349 of 2021 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and said E.P. was transmitted to the I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda and re-numbered as E.P.No.1743 of 2022. Further, the petitioner had filed E.A.No.40 of 2023 (old E.A.No.1844 of 2021), to condone the delay of 3358 days in depositing the balance sale consideration and sought for permission to deposit the said amount into the Court.
4. The respondent/judgment debtor are filed counter opposing the petition alleging that there are no grounds to condone the delay. The reasons cited for delay are that the respondent had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and said petition was dismissed on contest. Thereafter, the respondent approached the petitioner expressing willingness to receive the balance sale consideration, but thereafter evaded. During said interim, the petitioner's daughter’s marriage was arranged and due to retirement of the petitioner from service he could not pay the balance consideration of Rs.8,10,000/- into the Court. The respondent opposed the petitioner's case for condoning delay, denying having filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Further, the respondent denied the petitioner, approaching the petitioner agreeing to receive the balance sale consideration and evading the same. The reasons such as arrangement of the petitioner's daughter's marriage and retirement from service are denied as valid grounds for condoning delay in payment of balance sale consideration.
5. The learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, considered the version presented by both the parties and it is observed that no details are given as to what petition was filed by the respondent to set aside the ex parte decree, what are the dates of marriage of the petitioner’s daughter and when the petitioner retired from service. The details about the cause for delay are not given but are stated vaguely. The learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda relied upon judgment in Agnipalli Hanumantha Rao v. Vegi Venkata Lakshmi 2013 (2) ALT 533, wherein it is held that whenever extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration is to be sought for, the same has to be be
