DILIP KUMAR PATRO Vs. M GOPIKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant civil revision, the petitioner assails the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.S.No. 128 of 1997 rejecting his application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed for rescission of the contract on the ground that the plaintiff -opposite party did not comply with the judgment and decree passed in the above noted suit and committed default in depositing the balance consideration of Rs. 1,41,844/ - within the time stipulated in the decree to get the sale deed executed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present opposite party, as plaintiff, filed the above noted suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant -petitioner. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on 07.04.2001 with direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree on the latter's paying the balance consideration amount within the said period. On 19.09.2001, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration amount for the purpose of executing the sale deed but the latter did not deposit the said amount within the time stipulated in the decree. As the plaintiff did not turn up, the defendant filed the petition under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the decree. The learned Civil Judge rejected the said petition by order dated 26.06.2006, which is impugned in this revision.

(3.) THE impugned order is not an appealable one conferring jurisdiction of appeal either on this Court or any Court subordinate to it. No jurisdictional error also appears to have been committed by the trial Court. So, it is only to be seen what would be the effect of invoking the revisional jurisdiction if the revision is decided in favour of the revision -petitioner. In other words, had the petition under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 been allowed in favour of the petitioner, what would have been its effect on the suit.