APHC010499882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. KOLLATI NARASIMHA SWAMY, S/O TATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM 1. SYED ZAKIER, S/O AYYUB, AGED R/O CAR OF MONARCH AGENCIES, PEENAMOHAMMED STREET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA 2. KOLLATI TATAIAH, S/O MEERASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES R/O R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD MACHILIPATNAM 3. KOLLATI BALANAGAMMA, W/O KOLLATI TATAIAH, AGED ABOTU 67 YEARS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds f pleased topleased to SET-ASIDE the order dated 04.09.2025 in E.P. No 4 of 2024 in O.S. No 31 of 2007 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District and allow the present Civil Revision Petiti interest of Justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2462/2025 KOLLATI NARASIMHA SWAMY, S/O TATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND SYED ZAKIER, S/O AYYUB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O CAR OF MONARCH AGENCIES, PEENAMOHAMMED STREET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA-1 KOLLATI TATAIAH, S/O MEERASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES R/O R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD MACHILIPATNAM OLLATI BALANAGAMMA, W/O KOLLATI TATAIAH, AGED ABOTU 67 YEARS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be ASIDE the order dated 04.09.2025 in E.P. No 4 of 2024 in O.S. No 31 of 2007 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District and allow the present Civil Revision Petiti IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI KOLLATI NARASIMHA SWAMY, S/O TATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ...PETITIONER ABOUT 60 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O CAR OF MONARCH AGENCIES, PEENAMOHAMMED STREET, KOLLATI TATAIAH, S/O MEERASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES R/O R/O D. NO 30/415, OLLATI BALANAGAMMA, W/O KOLLATI TATAIAH, AGED ABOTU 67 YEARS, R/O D. NO 30/415, MUSTHAKHANPET, FORT ROAD, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the iled herein,the High Court may be ASIDE the order dated 04.09.2025 in E.P. No 4 of 2024 in O.S. No 31 of 2007 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District and allow the present Civil Revision Petition in the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including the execution of sale deed in E.P. No: 4 of 2024 in O.S. No: 31 of 2007 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District pending the present Civil revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2462/2025 ORDER: On the request made citing urgency by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lunch motion was granted. 2. The matter is taken up as lunch motion, listed in Lunch motion list. 2. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the 3rd Judgment Debtor (in short ‘J.Dr.’). 4. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff/Decree holder (in short ‘D.Hr.’). He filed O.S.No.31 of 2007 in the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 23.05.2005. The suit was decreed on 28.06.2014 in the following terms: “The suit is hereby decreed with costs by granting specific performance of contract on agreement of sale dated 23.05.2005 by directing the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- on or before 15 (fifteen) days from this date. On such deposit the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property within two months; ii) that if the defendants fall to execute the registered sale deed the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed according to law; iii) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,06,658/- (rupees one lakh six thousand six hundred and fifty eight only) towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs.13,112/- (rupees thirteen thousand one hundred and twelve only).” 5. The defendants filed A.S.No.468 of 2014 which was allowed in part vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2023 in the following terms: “68. As a result, (a) The Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dated 28.06.2014 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2007 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, is hereby confirmed to the relief of specific performance with costs, and (b) The judgment and decree dated 28.06.2014 passed in O.S.No.31 of 2007 shall stand modified and direct the respondent/plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from 22.07.2005 till the date of deposit of such amount in the Court, within two months from the date of this judgment. The balance amount already deposited, shall be deducted from the amount above. (c) On such deposit, defendants 1 and 2 shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month, failing which, the Court shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and (d) After execution of the sale deed, defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court and (e) In the facts and circumstances, the parties have to bear their costs in the Appeal.” 6. The defendants filed SLP(C).No. 7956 of 2024 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order dated 03.12.2024: “ORDER We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, taking into consideration the date of the agreement and the time that it has taken, we direct the respondent to pay an additional sum of Rs.25 lakh over and above the amount as per the decree awarded by the High Court. The amount will have to be paid within period of 12 weeks from today. The special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.” 7. The D.Hr. filed Exection Petition No.4 of 2024, inter-alia submitting that he deposited the amount, pursuant to the Trial Court decree as modified by the appellate Court and also as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, giving the details of the deposit as per the table as under: Sl.No. Date Court Amount Rs. 1. 11-07-2014 9th Additional District Judge’s Court 7,00,000/- 2. 04-01-2024 As per the Hon’ble High Court orders 15,10,266/- 3. 10-02-2025 As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders 25,00,000/- Total 47,10,266/- 8. The J.Drs., filed objections, mainly that, the deposit pursuant to the decree as modified in A.S.No.468 of 2014 was not full but deficit. According to the J.Drs., as per the modified appellate decree, the D.Hr., ought to have deposited Rs.31,02,247/-. 9. The Execution Court has rejected the objection of the petitioner by an order dated 04.09.2025. 10. Challenging the order dated 04.09.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed. 11. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute about the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- in terms of the Trial Court decree on 30.07.2014 before the Trial Court. 12. He also does not dispute the deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- made by the D.Hr., pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. He, however submits that the dispute is for the interest in terms of the modified appellate decree which in his submission comes to Rs.31,02,247/-, whereas the D.Hr., deposited only Rs.15,10,266/-. 14. A perusal of the appellate decree in clause (b) as quoted above clearly shows that the D.Hr., was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest @ 24% per annum from 22.07.2005 till the date of deposit of such amount in the Court within two months from the date of judgment. 15. There is no dispute raised that the amount of interest on balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- with effect from 22.07.2005 till 13.07.2014 (on which date the balance of Rs.7,00,000/- was deposited) comes to Rs.15,10,266/-. The same amount was deposited as is evident from Sl.No.2 in the table (supra). 16. The contention raised is that such amount of interest should have been calculated upto the date of deposit of interest i.e., 04.01.2024. This Court is not satisfied with the said submission. The interest was directed to be deposited on the balance amount from 22.07.2005 till the date of such deposit. The date of such deposit is the date of deposit of balance of sale consideration, which deposit was made on 13.07.2014, upto which interest has been deposited. 17. The view taken by the learned Execution Court is perfectly correct. 18. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of the learned Execution Court. The objection has rightly been rejected. 19. The Civil Revision Petition is without force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 19.09.2025 AG 524 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2462/2025 Dated: 19.09.2025 AG