ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is filed against the order dated 26th April, 1996 in C. F. R. No. 1248 in o. S. No. 18 of 1996 on the file of learned subordinate Judge, Kandukur.

( 2 ) THE above suit was filed for specific performance of contract praying the Court to pass a Judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff should be at liberty to get the same done through the process of the Court and further sought a direction to restrain the defendants, their men, heirs and assignees from raising any super-structures in the schedule property by means of permanent injunction and to pay costs of the suit.

( 3 ) THE above suit was filed on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 1-3-1996 entered into between the petitioner/ plaintiff and the respondents/defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge, before numbering the above suit, directed the plaintiff, in view of Explanation (i) to section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, to prepare to deposit the sale consideration after filing of the written statement while directing the Sheristadar of the Court to register the plaint, if otherwise in order. Assailing the correctness of the order, the present C. R. P. is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Court below is unwarranted and that the learned Judge passed the order impugned even before numbering the suit at the threshold itself and while passing the order impugned, the learned Judge has not given any reasons. He further contended that Explanation (i) to section 16 (c) of Specific Relief Act does not empower the Court to give such a discretion (sic. direction) at the stage of inception of the plaint, but what all required is to show the plaintiff s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Explanation (i) is an exception to the Section, therefore it cannot be given full effect. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of this Court in Sakamuri Sivaram babu v. Parasa Sunjan Raju wherein the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, guntur returning the plaint in CFR no. 11515 of 1991 with a direction to deposit the balance consideration for the purpose of entertaining the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale is questioned. This Court while interpreting explanation (i) to Section 16 (c) of the specific Relief Act, 1963 observed that in cases where payment of money is involved, it is not that essential for the plaintiff to actually tender or deposit the money, except when so directed by the Court and that the direction to deposit the money is as a matter of exception, the general rule being that there is no necessity of the money being deposited in order to prove one s own readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. It was further observed that the direction envisaged by the explanation as a measure of exception cannot be understood as one at the inception stage of the suit for purposes of registering the plaint and entertaining the suit and that this exception does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue direction for deposit of balance consideration even at the inception stage of the proceedings i. e. at the stage of registering and entertaining the suit. What all required by Section 16 (c) of the Act is that the plaintiff should aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, his part of the contract and held that the order under appeal therein was without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside.

( 5 ) FOR better appreciation of the contentions, it is better to extract Sec. l6 (c) (i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. "16: Personal Bars to relief: Specific performance of a con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document