L VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY Vs. M ANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful judgment-debtors seek to assail the order dated 19/1/2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, in E.P.No.50 of 1996 in O.S.No.33 of 1985 in the instant revision petition.

(2.) The respondents herein filed the E.P.No.50 of 1996 under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') to direct the judgment debtors 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 to execute the sale deed pursuant to the decree dated 11-8-1992 passed by the Court for specific performance in O.S.No.33 of 1985 after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and to put the decree holders in possession of properties covered therein.

(3.) That was objected to by the second judgment debtor on the premises that when the decree directed the original defendant in the suit to execute the sale deed by 21-09-1992, the decree holders deposited the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- after a long lapse of time on 22-04-1995, although E.P. was filed in the year 1994, and that it shows that the decree holders had no money or ready cash to perform their part of the contract and that they must show the readiness for getting the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration and that they have not deposited the balance within a reasonable time and that the value of the property was more than forty lakhs and that the decree holders had no cash and so they had not deposited the amount immediately after the decree and therefore they are not entitled to the relief. No evidence was adduced on either side in the E.P. After having heard either side and under the impugned order, the learned executing Court overruled those objections and ordered the next step. Inter alia in the impugned order, the learned executing Court was of the view that inasmuch as the decree did not fix any date to deposit the balance sale consideration and as after the deposit of balance sale consideration only the E.P. was numbered, the objections on the part of the judgment debtors were not tenable.