An executing court, which receives a case file due to administrative bifurcation of districts, possesses the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration, notwithstanding minor procedural errors in the filing.

ORDER:

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 ¹2013 (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 before the