APHC010415142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the twenty third day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2148 of 2025 Between: Jagga Mani Kishore ...Petitioner and Gangampalli Ravi Sekhar ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: K.Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondent: T.V.Jaggi Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.2148 of 2025 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.03.2025 dismissing I.A.No.117 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff under Section 148 of C.P.C. to extend the time for deposit of the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) by three months two days from 07.10.2024 to 09.01.2025. 2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 22.01.2021. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.09.2024 directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in case of failure to do so, to get it done through Court and further directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 07.10.2024. Thus, the trial Court gave only 12 days time from the date of judgment for making deposit of the balance sale consideration. Then, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.117 of 2025 reporting ready to pay the balance sale consideration on 09.01.2025 and sought extension of time of three months two days i.e., from 07.10.2024. The trial Court dismissed the petition observing that there is no plausible reason for the delay in depositing and on the other hand, the petitioner stated the reason for non-deposit as the delay in obtaining certified copy. 3. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed. 4. On notice to the respondent, there is appearance of the respondent through counsel. 5. Heard Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3 C.R.P.No.2148 of 2025 6. It is admitted that no appeal was preferred against the decree in O.S.No.27 of 2023. 7. Though, the petition is filed under Section 148 C.P.C., it is also relevant to examine Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 148 C.P.C. is excerpted hereunder: “148. Enlargement of time.—Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, [not exceeding thirty days in total,] even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.” Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is excerpted hereunder: “28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.—(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.” 8. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that abundant discretion is given to a Court to extend or reject further time for paying / depositing the balance amount of sale consideration. Whenever there is discretion, the same shall be judiciously exercised. 4 C.R.P.No.2148 of 2025 9. Since a larger part of the sale consideration was already paid, the suit was decreed and the balance amount due was Rs.4,00,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.16,10,000/-. As on the date of filing of I.A.No.117 of 2025, it is just three months two days delay to comply the direction. Since the time given in the decree is only 12 days, it may be difficult to comply such direction immediately. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have exercised its discretion in extending the time, may be, subject to certain conditions / terms to protect the interest of the respondent / defendant by directing to pay a lumpsum additional amount or with interest at reasonable rate. Therefore, this Court is of the view that directing the petitioner to pay interest on the balance amount @ 12% p.a. from 07.10.2024 till the date of payment made within the time stipulated by this Court would render justice to both the parties. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.117 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda is set aside and the said I.A.No.117 of 2025 is allowed on the condition that the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 07.10.2024 till the date of payment within three (3) weeks from today, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.23.12.2025 Note: Issue CC by 24.12.2025 B/o PNV