K ATMARAM Vs. N SITARAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S.No.71 of 1992 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 17.09.1990. The transaction was in respect of Acs.5.50 cents of land for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-. The suit was decreed, on 17.09.1992. According to the decree, the petitioner herein shall execute the sale deed within two months, after receiving the balance of sale consideration. By the date of decree, an insolvency case, being I.P.No.14 of 1990, filed against the petitioner in the same Court, was pending. Petitioner and respondent herein figured as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in that I.P. The Insolvency Court allowed the I.P., through judgment, dated 24.11.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.4 of 1999 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku. The appeal was allowed, on 21.09.2004.

(2.) The respondent initially filed E.P.(SR) No.2394 of 1996 for execution of decree in O.S.No.71 of 1992. It was returned on 07.08.1997, with certain objections. Thereafter, the 1" respondent withdrew the E.P., on 17.07.2000. He filed I.A.No.302 of 2001 under Section 148 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay of 2928 days in depositing the balance of sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 17.09.2002, the trial Court allowed the I.A., and condoned the delay. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

(3.) Sri S.Sriramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was absolutely no basis or justification for the trial Court to condone the delay of 7 years in depositing the amount. He submits that the respondent cannot seek execution of the decree, since it is barred by time, and that the trial Court has almost given life to a decree, which has become otherwise unenforceable. He has raised certain other contentions also.