K. Kondanna and Another vs D. Chilakamma

Ranga Reddy, J.—This is a revision filed by the Judgment-debtors in E.P. 117 of 1989 in O.S. No. 473/82 on the file of the District Munsif, Anantapur against the orders, dated 28-7-1990.

The facts leading to the filing of the revision-petition are in brief as follows : The respondent herein obtained a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the petitioners in O.S. No. 473 of 1982. The judgment and decree is dated 25-3-1987. The respondent herein was granted two months'' time for depositing the balance of sale consideration into court and for obtaining a sale deed. The two months'' time granted expired by 25-5-1987. The Court remained closed during the month of May for summer vacation. So the respondent deposited the amount on 2-6-19J 7, the re-opening day, and filed R.P. 117 of 1989 requiring the petitioners herein to execute a sale-deed. The petitioner-judgment-debtors objected for the same on the ground that the respondent has not deposited the amount within time. The learned District Munsif overruled the objection stating that as the Court remained closed for summer vacation the respondent herein could not deposit the amount within two months and that the deposit was made on the re-opening day and that, therefore, the deposit must be deemed to have been made within time. Aggrieved by that order, the Judgment-Debtors have filed this revision-petition.

According to the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court can interfere in revision where it appears that the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The proviso to Section 115 says that the High Court shall not u/s 115 vary or reverse any order made except where the order if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable loss or injury to the party against when it was made.

In the instant case, the respondent has deposited the amount few days after the lapse of time granted under the decree and that too, on account of the fact that the court remained closed for summer vacation. This has not been disputed by the other side. I do not see how this order is allowed to stand would occasion any failure of justice-or irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom it was made so as to enable the High Court to entertain the revision and vary or modify the order.

So, under the circumstances, I find that the revision-petition is not maintainable in view of the proviso (b) to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.