ORDER
1. The petitioner herein was the original defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff. The plaintiff-
respondent herein instituted the suit OS No.1080 of 1981 in the Court of the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24-2-3980. The agreement of sale was executed by the defendant-petitioner herein in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein for a consideration of Rs.36,000/-. The suit was decreed on 27-2-1986 directing the plaintiff-respondent herein to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the decree i.e., on or before 27-3-1986 and the defendant-petitioner herein was directed to execute the sale-deed within two months from the date of decree.
2. It is further alleged by the defendant-petitioner herein that the plaintiff-respondent herein did not deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of decree but filed an application i.e., IA No.429 of 1986 on 24-3-1986 seeking extension of time till 27-4-1986. The said application was allowed extending the time for depositing the amount of Rs.30,000/- till 2-6-1986.
3. It is further alleged by the defendant-petitioner herein that the plaintiff-respondent herein failed to deposit the aforesaid amount on or before 2-6-1986 instead the plaintiff-respondent herein filed another application i.e., IA No.3245 of 1987 on 9-9-1987 seeking further extension of time and she seems to have deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/-on 15-2-1989 i.e., three years after the date fixed by the decree. The Accounts Section of the trial Court seems to have put up a note to the effect that the deposit had been made on 13-3-1989 and the same was withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner herein. Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondent herein made a false representation before the trial Court that the defendant-petitioner herein had withdrawn the amount deposited by her and thus a false statement was made by the
plaint iff-respondent herein to mislead the trial Court. The trial Court passed an order on 8-12-1989 stating that the plaintiff-respondent herein deposited the amount ofRs.30,000/- on 13-3-1989 and the defendant-petitioner herein had withdrawn the same. Therefore, IA No.3245 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein was allowed and the time was extended.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner herein that the plaintiff-decree-holder filed EP No.7 of 1990 on 24-1-1990 for execution of a sale-deed and for registration of the same. In execution proceedings the plaintiff-respondent* herein made a false and fraudulent statement that an amount of Rs.30,000/-was deposited by her on 15-2-1989 and it was withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner herein on 28-9-1989 and that the trial Court had condoned the delay.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner herein that she filed a counter and pointed out the Court that the allegation of the plaintiff-respondent herein deposited the amount in time is false and her statement that it was withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner herein is also false.
6. The trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence in execution proceedings.
7. It is the further case of the defendant-petitioner herein that she filed EA No.89 of 1992 in EP No.7 of 1990 in OS No.1080 of 1981 on 15-4-1992 under Sections 27 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the agreement of sale in respect of which the specific performance had been decreed on the ground that the plaint iff-respondent herein did not deposit the amount within the time fixed under the decree, that the plaintiff-respondent herein played fraud on the Court by mis-representing that the amount was deposited by her and withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner herein within time and obtained the order of extension extending
the time to deposit the amount by misrepresentation.
8. It is the further case of the defendant-petitioner herein that she has not withdrawn the amount, however the Executing Court (trial Court) dismissed EA No.89 of 1992 holding that the defendant-petitioner herein failing to file the revision against the order dated 22-4-1986 made in IA No.429 of 1986 and that the defendant-petitioner herein also did not file a revision against the second order dated 8-12-1989. It was further observed by the Executing Court that after filing IA No.3245 of 1987, the plaintiff-respondent herein had procured second extension of time by misrepresentation. It was further observed by the Executing Court that the Accounts Section of the Court made a “fishy” endorsement that the amount was deposited by the plaintiff-respondent herein and it was withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner herein.
9. Aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid EA, the defendant-petitioner herein has filed the present revision.
10. On presentation of the revision, notice was issued to the respondent herein. Though the notice was served on the respondent, none appeared.
11. I heard the learned Counsel Mr. R. Subba Rao appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein.
12. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner herein had filed an application i.e., EA No.89 of 1992 under Sections 27 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the contract and the decree passed in OS Nb.1080 of 1981. The said EA was dismissed by the lower Court erroneously. The learned Counsel further pointed out from the judgment of the trial Court that though the Executing Court was satisfied that a ‘fishy’ endorsement was made by the Accounts Section that the
amount was deposited by the plaintiff-
respondent herein within time and it was
withdrawn by the defendant-petitioner
herein. The learned Counsel submitted that
though the Executing Court was satisfied
that a ‘fishy’ endorsement was made by
the Court Officials, the Executing Court
did not probe further into the matter so as
to ascertain whether the endorsement is
‘fishy’ or otherwise. It was also submitted
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
herein that it was the duty of the Court to
make thorough enquiry and take action
against the Court officials if they were
found to have made false endorsement to
mislead the Court.
13. It further appears from the record that it was a specific case of the petitioner herein that the plaintiff-respondent herein did not deposit the amount in time which was repeatedly pointed out by the petitioner herein. Inspite of this position, the Presiding Officer of the Executing Court did not ascertain the truth and proceeded to pass the order dismissing EA No.89 of 1992.
14. Considering the facts on record, this Court expresses displeasure regarding the working of the Executing Court. Therefore, this Court allows the revision, restores the EA, to the file of the Executing Court i.e., the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and directs the Executing Court to make thorough enquiry and ascertain the truth whether the petitioner is telling the truth or the respondent is telling the truth? The Executing Court is also directed to call for the concerned registers and find out whether an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff-respondent herein within time as alleged by her. The Executing Court is also directed to ascertain with reference to the record as to when this amount so deposited has been credited to the Government with reference to the registers maintained by the Court and after ascertaining the truth, if the Executing
Court finds that the statement made by the plaintiff-respondent herein on oath is false, then file a prosecution for perjury against the plaintiff-respondent herein. The same rule would apply in the case of the defendant-petitioner herein if her statement is found to be false. The Executing Court is further directed to bring to the notice of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad regarding the false endorsement made by the Court Officials for instituting the departmental enquiry against them. The Executing Court is further directed that after completing the entire exercise, it shall decide EA No.89 of 1992 on its merits. The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
15. Office is directed to despatch the order to the Executing Court i.e., the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, forthwith.
16. With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.