Delay In Depositing Balance Sale Consideration No Bar When Seller Lets Specific Performance Decree Attain Finality: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court allowed a petition by a decree-holder seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration after a delay of 3358 days, noting that the respondent seller had neither contested the specific performance suit nor challenged the decree for nearly 10 years after it was passed.

Justice Renuka Yara observed that once the respondent had allowed the decree for specific performance to attain finality, he could not have a valid ground to oppose the later plea for condonation of delay in deposit of the sale consideration.

The Court said that the petitioner had obtained a decree for specific performance against the respondent, that the respondent “did not contest the main suit,” and also “did not deem it fit to challenge the decree for a period of atleast 10 years,” as a result of which the judgment and decree had become final. At that stage, when the petitioner sought condonation of delay in payment of the balance sale consideration, the respondent could not validly oppose the petition.

The petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree in O.S. No.371 of 2010 on 29.12.2011 from the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, in a suit for specific performance. Under that decree, he was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,10,000 within 15 days. He later filed an execution petition along with an application seeking condonation of delay and permission to deposit the amount into court.

The respondent opposed the plea, arguing that there were no valid reasons to condone the delay. He denied the petitioner's version that he had earlier filed proceedings to set aside the ex parte decree or that there had been discussions regarding receipt of the balance amount. He also argued that the petition for extension of time had to be filed before the court which passed the decree, and not before the executing court.

The executing court accepted that objection and dismissed the application as not maintainable, relying on precedent that extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration should be sought before the court which passed the decree.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the decree had already become final and that refusing permission to deposit the amount would defeat the decree itself. He also pointed out that the matter had reached the Medchal-Malkajgiri court only because of administrative transfer after bifurcation of districts, and that he had no real option but to move that court.

Allowing the revision, the High Court held that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings, a party in a specific performance matter can seek extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court added that merely quoting the wrong provision could not be a reason to deny the relief sought.

The Court further held that the petitioner could not be faulted for approaching the Medchal-Malkajgiri court, since the records had been transferred there on account of district bifurcation. In those circumstances, the objection on forum was held to be too technical.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, condoned the 3358-day delay, and permitted the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,10,000 with 12% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of deposit.

Case Title: Shaik Abdul Khader v. G. Anil Dutt Kamble

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No.345 of 2025

Appearance: Sri N. Bhujanga Rao for the petitioner; Sri Police Venkat Reddy for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order