The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1418 of 2025 Between: G. Gopal Setty ...Petitioner and K.Lakshmi ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for the respondent: 1.Nil Date of Order Pronounced : 02.09.2025 Submitted for Approval: The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the order? 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals? 3. Whether Her Ladyship wish to see the fair copy Yes/No of the order? _________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 2 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 * The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi +Civil Revision Petition No.1418 of 2025 % 02.09.2025 # Between: G. Gopal Setty ...Petitioner and K.Lakshmi ...Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sai Gangadhar Chamarty ^ Counsel for the respondent : Nil < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2024 (2) ALT 714 3 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 APHC010300712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Second Day of September Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1418 of 2025 Between: G. Gopal Setty ...Petitioner and K.Lakshmi ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for the respondent: 1.Nil The Court made the following Order: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.03.2025, dismissing I.A.No.109 of 2024 in O.S.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. to permit the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.64,03,000/- payable under agreement of sale dated 14.10.2010 for the enforcement of which the suit for specific performance was filed. 2. The plaintiff stated in the petition that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and therefore this petition was filed. 4 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 3. The petition was opposed by the respondent / defendant by filing counter stating that she had not received any amount from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff filed the suit 8 years after the agreement of sale, which had been cancelled long back on failing of the plaintiff to perform his obligation within time and that the petition was also filed belatedly 5 years after institution of the suit and that it falsifies the contention of the plaintiff that the petition was filed to fortify that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. 4. After hearing both the parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court agreeing with the contentions of the respondent in the counter regarding the delay in filing the suit and the petition. The petitioner relied on the decision in the case of Bogi Rajeswari Vs. Chintala Srinivasa Kumar1 wherein it was held that the relief of specific performance cannot be rejected on the ground of escalation of prices and that once an agreement of sale is proved to be legal and valid and further requirements for getting such a decree established, the Court has to exercise its discretion to grant specific performance and further that non deposit of balance consideration amount cannot be a ground to hold that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The trial Court distinguished its application to the present case observing that in the cited case, the suit was filed within a period of 1 year from the date of agreement. Thus, the Court held that directing the plaintiff to deposit the amount is not proper and would lead to complexity of litigation. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition has been filed contending that the trial Court failed to consider the subject in a 1 2024 (2) ALT 714 5 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 correct perspective; that the findings of the trial Court regarding the limitation in filing the suit is unwarranted in this interlocutory petition as it amounts to prejudging the issue; that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the event of allowing the application; that the trial Court misread the ratio in the decision cited; and that the failure of the trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent, there has been no appearance. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the grounds of revision and further submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to deposit amount without prejudice to the contentions of the respondent in the final adjudication. 8. It is the burden of the plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract. As such, the petitioner intended to deposit the amount for which permission was sought. At that juncture, there is no need to go into the question of delay as this fact can be evaluated, like any other fact, while deciding the issue of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. Mere deposit itself does not establish absolute readiness and willingness. It shall be evaluated in the light of the other facts and circumstances of the case. It is only after cumulative reading of the evidence on this aspect, a decision can be arrived at regarding the readiness and willingness of a party. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount with a rider necessary to safeguard the interest of the respondent. 6 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 25.03.2025, in I.A.No.109 of 2024 in O.S.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.109 of 2024 is allowed permitting the petitioner / plaintiff to deposit Rs.64,03,000/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent / defendant with regard to evidence required to establish readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of the suit contract. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Date: 02.09.2025 RSD 7 C.R.P.No.1418 of 2025 50 The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1418 of 2025 Date: 02.09.2025 RSD