O R D E R All these civil revision petitions were filed against the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court in various IAs pending disposal of the suit OS No.3 of 1998 filed by Surampalli Hanumantha Rao and another (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiffs’) against Muvva Srinivassarao and others (herein after 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. While CRP No.5464 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiffs against the orders dated 26-10-1999 made in IA No.286 of 1999 in OS No.3 of 1998 wherein the Court below directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration to the credit of the suit. Defendant No. I Muvva Srinivasa Rao has filed CRP No.5231 of 1999 against the order dated 26-10-1999 in IA No.286 of 1999 in OS No.3 of 1998 wherein the Court below directed the defendants I and 2 to deposit Rs.9,00,000/- said to have been received by them as sale consideration. CRPNo.5221 of 1999 is also filed by the 1st defendant Muvva Srinivasa Rao and CRPNo.5636 of 1999 was filed by the 2nd defendant, Muvva Sudhakar Rao against the order dated 26-10-1999 passed in IA No. 1623 of 1999 in OS No.3 of 1998 on the file of the same Court, wherein the Court directed the defendants to reinstall the entire machinery that is alleged to have been removed during the tendency of the suit and put it in running condition in the suit schedule property. While Muvva Srinivasa Rao, the 1st defendant filed CRP No.5231 of 1999 against the order of the Court in IA No.286 of 1999 dated 26-10-1999 wherein the Court directed him to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- CRP No.5637 of 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 CPR No.5638 of 1999 against the order dated 26-10-1999 passed in IA No.l321 of 1999 in OS No.3 of 1998 wherein the Court dismissed the IA filed for depositing the interest on the balance of sale consideration. The trial Court passed orders in all the IAs separately but on the same day i.e 26-10-1999. He also filed CPR No.5638 of 1999 against the order dated 26-10-1999 passed in IA No.l321 of 1999 in OS No.3 of 1998 wherein the Court dismissed the IA filed for depositing the interest on the balance of sale consideration. The trial Court passed orders in all the IAs separately but on the same day i.e 26-10-1999. 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 OS No.3 of 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 I 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 staling 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 staling that time is not the essence of the contract and they cannot wriggle out ,of the contract. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit OS No.3 of 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 IA No. 1623 of 1999 alleging that defendants I 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 reinstall the machinery and put the same into working condition. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed IA No. 1623 of 1999 alleging that defendants I 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 reinstall 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. The 1st defendant in his counter stated that the 2nd defendant had executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 1-4-1998 slating that he sold the machinery on his own and he alone is responsible for any decree that is going to be passed by the Court below with regard to the machinery and therefore the plaintiffs cannot seek any direction against him for reinstalling and putting the machinery into working condition. The Court below allowed the lAs. and directed the defendant to reinstall the machinery and put the same in running condition. CRP Nos.5636 of 1999 and 5221 of 1999 were filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants aggrieved by the orders of the Court below in IA No. 1623 of 1999 wherein a direction was given to both the defendants to reinstall the machinery and put the machinery in working condition. According to the Commissioner’s report machinery is not there in the suit premises. But at the same time it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the machinery was sold to someone else. It is the specific case of the 2nd defendant that he sold his half share under earlier agreement of sale dated 26-9-1997 whereas it is the case of the 1st defendant that the entire machinery was sold by the 2nd defendant under earlier agreement and in fact the 2nd defendant gave anundertaking to the-1st defendant on 1-4-1998 that in the event of the suit being decreed it will be his duty to satisly the decree. Now the Court has to decide whether the machinery was removed by the 1st plaintiff under the agreement of sale or someone else has removed the machinery after he filed the suit for specific performance in collusion with defendants and 2. Now the Court has to decide whether the machinery was removed by the 1st plaintiff under the agreement of sale or someone else has removed the machinery after he filed the suit for specific performance in collusion with defendants and 2. Even assuming without admitting that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the 3rd party has removed the machinery the plaintiffs will be entitled for claiming set off to the extent of the value of the machinery as the value of the machinery was already fixed under an earlier agreement of sale. Again the Court has to decide whether the 2nd defendant sold only his half share in the machinery or sold the entire machinery under the earlier agreement for Rs.6 lakhs. Even assuming that the value of half share of the machinery is Rs.6 lakhs the value of the entire machinery comes to Rs.l2 lakhs. Even according to the plaintiffs they have to pay Rs.28 lakhs as balance sale consideration and if they deposit the amount to the credit of the suit and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second agreement of sale includes the entire machinery also, he can always claim set off for the value of the machinery and the Court will be at liberty to work out the equities in the case. Hence, I do not find any merit in the order passed by the trial Court directing the defendants I and 2 to reinstall the machinery and put the same in working condition. The trial Court has to adjudicate the dispute on the basis of the facts that were placed before the Court and takins into account the totality and circumstances of the case. Hence the order in IA No. 1623 of 1999 directing the defendants to reinstall the machinery and put the same in working condition in the suit premises is set aside. In Hence CRP Nos.5636 of 1999 and 5221 of 1999 are allowed. Hence the order in IA No. 1623 of 1999 directing the defendants to reinstall the machinery and put the same in working condition in the suit premises is set aside. In Hence CRP Nos.5636 of 1999 and 5221 of 1999 are allowed. CRP No.5637 of 1999 was filed by the 1 st defendant aggrieved by the orders of the Court below in the same IA i.e., IA No.286 of 1999 wherein the Court has directed to deposit Rs.3 lakhs alleged to have been received by him as sale consideration to the credit of the suit and CRP No.5231 of 1999 was filed by the 2nd defendant against the order in the same IA i.e., IA No.286 of 1999 wherein the Court directed to deposit Rs.9 lakhs alleged to have been received by him towards sale consideration for the machinery under the first agreement and the amount received under agreement of sale dated 20-10-1997. This being a suit for specific performance the question of the vendor depositing the amount of sale consideration received by him at the time of entering into agreement of sale does not arise. If the suit filed for specific performance is decreed, the plaintiffs will only be entitled to set off to the extent of the amount that was paid at the time of executing the agreement and the question of depositing the amount by the vendors to the credit of the suit does not arise. Counsel for the plaintiffs strenuously contended that both the defendants have taken inconsistent stand and tried to mislead the Court and the Court having noticed the conduct of the parties, passed the said order. Whatever may be the conduct of the parties, now the question to be determined is whether time is the essence of the contract or not and if the Court comes to the conclusion that time is not the essence of contract the suit is to be decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to set off for the amount he has already paid. But the question of the vendor depositing the amount to the credit of the suit does not arise. Hence these two Civil Revision Petition Nos-5637 of 1999 and 5231 of 1999 are allowed. Plaintiff filed CRP No.5464 of 1999, aggrieved by the orders of the Court below in IA No.286 of 1999 directing the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration. Hence these two Civil Revision Petition Nos-5637 of 1999 and 5231 of 1999 are allowed. Plaintiff filed CRP No.5464 of 1999, aggrieved by the orders of the Court below in IA No.286 of 1999 directing the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration. CRP No.5638 of 1999 is filed by the 2nd defendant against the orders in IA No. 1321 of 1999 wherein the 2nd defendant sought for a direction from the Court to the plaintiffs to deposit interest on the balance sale consideration. As the trial Court has already directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration in IANo.286 of 1999, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly the CRP No.5638 of 1999 is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs strenuously contended that in the light of the admissions made by the defendants the Court below went wrong in directing the parties to deposit the amounts instead of decreeing the suit straightaway. In support of his contention he relied on judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of the Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, 1999 SAR (Civil) 885. It is true that the Supreme Court ruled that if the facts are not in dispute, as per the admission made by the parties, the suit need not undergo the full length of trial and the suit can be decreed on that basis without following the procedure contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code. But in this case the fact remains that there is a serious dispute between the parties whether time is the essence of contract or not. While the defendants contends that time is not the essence of contract and the plaintiffs failed to comply with terms of the agreement since the agreement of sale worked out for itself and the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. Likewise it is also in dispute whether the 2nd defendant sold the entire machinery under earlier agreement sale dated 26-9-1997 and the machinery did not form part of the second agreement of sale dated 20-10-1997. Likewise it is also in dispute whether the 2nd defendant sold the entire machinery under earlier agreement sale dated 26-9-1997 and the machinery did not form part of the second agreement of sale dated 20-10-1997. Thirdly, it is the case of the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 1-4-1998 wherein the 2nd defendant has undertaken to satisfy the decree in the event the suit being decreed with regard to the machinery and relieving the Ist defendant from his obligation to comply with the decree to the extent. All these questions will be decided only if the suit undergoes the full length of trial. Hence the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balraj’s case (supra) is not of much help to the plaintiffs. As far as deposit of balance of sale consideration is concerned they did not assail the order. Hence this Civil Revision Petition No.5464 of 1999 is dismissed. In the result, CRP 5464 of 1999 filed by the plaintiffs and CRP No.56738 of 1999 filed by the Ist defendant are dismissed. All other CRPs., are allowed. As the suit is of the year 1998, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. --X—