LAXMAN B DOLWANI Vs. B SURENDER GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the petitioner plaintiff in I.A.No. 747 1991 in O.S. No. 82/1983 on the file of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary) City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The revision petitioner had filed the present CRP aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing IA. No. 747 of 1991 in OS. No. 82 of 1983 by order dated 30-10-1991. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner under Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C requesting the Court to extend time for depositing a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the balance of sale consideration. The revision petitioner had instituted the suit referred to supra for the relief of the specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property and ultimately the suit was decreed on the 2nd day of August, 1991. The revision petitioner was directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,85,000/- into the Court within the one month from 2nd day of August, 1991. But, however, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was deposited on 30-8-1991. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he was unable to deposit the remaining sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- within the time granted since he had invested huge amounts for purchase of agricultural lands and the development thereafter anticipating that it would take some more time for the final disposal of the suit and hence in the light of the above circumstances a request was made for extension of time to deposit Rs. 1,25,000/- by two more months. The said application was dismissed for default and the application was restored as per orders in I.A.No. 753/91 and ultimately I.A.No. 747 of 1991 in OS. No. 82 of 1983 also was dismissed by an order dated 30-10-1991 without giving any reasons. Aggrieved by the same the present CRP is filed.

(3.) Sri R. Kondaiah, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had made elaborate submissions relating to the power of the Court to extend time and though such power is available the Court below had erroneously dismissed the application. The learned Counsel also had brought to may notice that the balance amount was deposited on 23-9-1991 and in substance the decree was complied with. The learned Counsel also had stated that there is no default clause incorporated in the decree and even if such default clause had been incorporated, the Court is not powerless to extend time under Section 148 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the decree in OS.No. 82 of 1983 and also Sec. 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on Manika Gounder v, Samikanu, M/s. Prime Promoters Pvt. Ltd, v. Aroop Kumar Chatterjee, Chithambaran v. Viswambaran and Mandavilli Sujatha v. Vykunta Rao.