Execution Cannot Be Frustrated on Hyper-Technical Grounds: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Re-Deposit of Sale Consideration

“Having Raised No Objection at the First Instance, Judgment-Debtors Cannot Now Turn Around and Object”, On 24 February 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order permitting re-deposit of balance sale consideration in execution proceedings arising from a decree for specific performance.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy upheld the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, allowing the decree-holder to re-deposit Rs.4,00,000/- in E.P. No.58 of 2012. The Court found no perversity, illegality or impropriety warranting interference under supervisory jurisdiction.

The ruling reaffirms that execution proceedings cannot be derailed on belated technical objections, particularly where the decree-holder had acted in compliance and obtained liberty from the High Court itself.

Decree for Specific Performance and the Course of Events

The original suit, O.S. No.37 of 2008, was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.11.2007. By judgment dated 02.12.2011, the trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed within two months after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. In default, the plaintiff was permitted to get the sale deed executed through Court by depositing the balance amount.

When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the decree-holder deposited Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.03.2012 and initiated execution proceedings.

Subsequently, the judgment-debtor preferred A.S. No.723 of 2012. The High Court granted interim stay of execution. During pendency of the appeal, the decree-holder sought and obtained permission to withdraw the deposited amount “with liberty to deposit the same after disposal of the appeal.” The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 01.11.2023.

After dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder filed E.A. No.44 of 2025 seeking permission to re-deposit the amount. The trial Court allowed the application, leading to the present revision.

“Decree Does Not Specifically Contemplate Time for Deposit by Decree-Holder”

The principal contention of the petitioners was that the decree-holder had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree, and therefore the decree became inexecutable. Heavy reliance was placed on Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman and P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi, where the Supreme Court held that failure to deposit within stipulated time may result in automatic dismissal of the suit.

The High Court distinguished those precedents.

Justice Reddy observed that in the present case, “the decree does not specifically contemplate the time within which the balance sale consideration has to be deposited by the respondent/decree holder.” The direction in the decree primarily required the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months. Only upon his failure was liberty granted to the plaintiff to get the document executed through Court by depositing the amount.

Crucially, the decree-holder had in fact deposited the amount in 2012 without any objection from the judgment-debtor.

“Re-Deposit Pursuant to Liberty Granted by This Court Cannot Be Faulted”

The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of the amount was not unilateral. It was permitted by the High Court itself during pendency of the appeal, expressly granting liberty to re-deposit the amount after disposal of the appeal.

The Court held that once such liberty was granted and acted upon, the judgment-debtors could not subsequently object to the re-deposit.

It observed that “having raised no objection at the first instance at the time when the balance sale consideration was deposited originally on 21.3.2012 and at the time of liberty being granted by this Court… the petitioners/judgment debtors cannot object for re-deposit of the said amount pursuant to the liberty granted.”

The doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence operated against the petitioners.

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act Not Invoked

The Court also noted that no application for rescission under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 had been filed by the judgment-debtors. The attempt to treat the decree as automatically dismissed was therefore untenable.

The decisions relied upon by the petitioners were held inapplicable to the peculiar factual matrix of the case, where initial deposit was made and subsequent withdrawal occurred under judicial orders.

The Court made it clear that execution proceedings cannot be frustrated “on hyper-technical grounds” when substantial compliance is evident.

“Execution Petitions Must Be Decided Within Six Months” – Supreme Court Directives Reiterated

Taking note of the Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and the recent decision in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs v. V. Rajamani, the High Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of execution petitions.

The Court observed that the execution petition had been pending since 2012 and that repeated objections were delaying the fruits of the decree.

Referring to the administrative Circular issued by the High Court pursuant to Supreme Court directions, the Court directed the trial Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the execution petition expeditiously in accordance with the six-month guideline.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 – No Ground for Interference

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court reiterated that interference is warranted only where there is perversity, illegality or gross impropriety.

Finding none in the impugned order permitting re-deposit, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding it “devoid of merits.”

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice in execution of decrees for specific performance, especially where the decree-holder has acted under the protective umbrella of judicial orders.

Date of Decision: 24.02.2026