SURAMPALLI HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. M SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Revision Petitions were filed against the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court in various I.As. pending disposal of the suit O.S. No.3/1998 filed by Surampalli Hanumantha Rao and another (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') against Muvva Srinivasarao and others (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') for specific performance of the agreement dated 20-10-1997 against the defendants pending on the file of District Court at Ongole.

(2.) While C.R.P. No.5464/1999 was filed by the plaintiffs against the orders dated 26-10-1999 made in I.A. No.286/1999 in O.S. No.3/1998 wherein the Court below directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration to the credit of the suit. Defendant No.l Muvva Srinivasa Rao has filed C.R.P. No.5231/1999 against the order dated 26-10-1999 in I.A. No.286/1999 in O.S. No.3/1998 wherein the Court below directed the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit Rs.9,00,000/- said to have been received by them as sale consideration. C.R.P. No.5221/1999 is also filed by the 1st defendant Muvva Srinivasa Rao and C.R.P. No.5636/99 was filed by the 2nd defendant, Muvva Sudhakar Rao against the order dated 26-10-1999 passed in I.A. No.1623/1999 in O.S. No.3/1998 on the file of the same Court, wherein the Court directed the defendants to reinstal the entire machinery that is alleged to have been removed during the pendency of the suit and put it in running condition in the suit schedule property. While Muvva Srinivasa Rao, the 1st defendant filed C.R.P. No.5231/99 against the order of the Court in I.A. No.286 of 1999 dated 26-10-1999 wherein the Court directed him to deposit Rs.3,00,000/-. C.R.P. No.5637/1999 is filed by the 2nd defendant Muvva Sudhakar Rao against the said order wherein the Court directed them to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- alleged to have been received by them as advance towards sale consideration at the time of agreement of sale. He also filed C.R.P. No.5638/1999 against the order dated 26-10-1999 passed in LA. No.1321/1999 in O.S. No.3/1998 wherein the Court dismissed the LA. filed for depositing the interest on the balance of sale consideration. The trial Court passed orders in all the I.As. separately but on the same day i.e., 26-10-1999.

(3.) For appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties in these civil revision petitions and the factual background that led to the filing of the suit O.S. No.3/1998 by the plaintiffs can be briefly narrated as follows: The case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant under the agreement of sale dated 26-9-1997 sold his half share in the Balaji Rice Mill for a consideration of Rs.24 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.6 lakhs as advance. Subsequently the 1st defendant came forward to sell his half share. Then the plaintiffs obtained a fresh agreement of sale for the entire suit property from defendants 1 and 2 on 20-10-1997 for Rs.40,00,000/- i.e., Balaji Rice Mill along with the land appurtenant to it and on the date of the agreement the plaintiffs paid Rs.6 lakhs as advance as per the terms of the agreement. As per the agreement the plaintiffs have to pay Rs.10 lakhs within one month and the remaining sale consideration at the time of registration. When the plaintiffs failed to pay the amount of Rs.10 lakhs within the stipulated time, the defendants caused a legal notice on 21-11-1997 stating that the agreement of sale stands annulled as the plaintiffs failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement of sale. For that the plaintiffs sent a reply dated 3-12-1997 stating that time is not the essence of the contract and they cannot wriggle out of the contract. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit O.S. No.3/1998 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale by the defendants Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed LA. No.1623/1999 alleging that defendants 1 and 2 removed the machinery from the suit schedule property and as the agreement covers both the machinery as well as the land the defendants are bound to reinstal the machinery and put the same into working condition. On that an Advocate Commissioner seemed to have been appointed who in turn reported that there was no machinery in the mill.