In a detailed order pronounced on October 23, 2025, Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Mr. Bimal Kumar Bengani. The petitioner had challenged a lower court’s refusal to reject a suit for specific performance of a 2019 land sale agreement. The court, however, found that the dispute over the validity of the termination notice and payments made after the contractual deadline must go to trial.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Energy Directorate Order, Directs Fresh Review of Greenko's
Background
The case revolved around a 2/3rd share in agricultural land measuring over 3 acres at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. The land had been the subject of long-running litigation since 2002. In 2019, the petitioner agreed to sell his share to Mr. Kancharla Krishna Reddy for ₹4 crore. Of this, ₹1 crore was paid upfront, with the balance ₹3 crore due by October 1, 2019.
The seller later issued a termination notice in January 2021, claiming the buyer had failed to pay on time and that the agreement was void. The buyer disputed this, asserting that payments were made even after the stated deadline ₹55 lakh on October 3 and ₹50 lakh on October 10, 2019 which, he said, proved that time was not the essence of the contract.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds ITAT Order in Remfry & Sagar Case, Rejects Revenue’s Plea on Goodwill
Court’s Observations
Justice Renuka Yara carefully reviewed the sale agreement, the termination notice, and the payments made. The bench noted that although the petitioner had reserved the right to cancel the contract for delay, his own actions accepting money after the deadline contradicted that stance.
“The petitioner himself received additional sale consideration of ₹1.05 crore even after the expiry of the time line,” the bench observed, adding that such conduct “clearly shows that clause relating to time being the essence of contract stood diluted.”
The court emphasized that while the buyer did not separately seek to nullify the termination notice, that omission was not fatal. The judge explained that the validity of the termination notice naturally forms part of the specific performance claim. “Only when the termination notice is held to be invalid can the relief of specific performance be granted,” Justice Yara said.
The bench also pointed out that these are trialable issues matters that cannot be decided at the preliminary stage based on pleadings alone. “The subsequent conduct of the parties, the effect of payments after the deadline, and the question of whether the contract still subsisted must be examined through full-fledged trial,” the order read.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Warns IndusInd Loan Defaulter of Arrest, Orders 10 Lakh Payment by November 13
Decision
Finding no legal error in the lower court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The judge concluded that the plaint could not be rejected merely because of the termination notice, as the existence and effect of that notice must be determined through evidence.
“The plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold,” Justice Yara ruled, affirming the trial court’s earlier decision dated January 21, 2024, and allowing the original civil suit to proceed.
With that, the petition by Mr. Bengani was dismissed, and the court ordered no costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were declared closed.
Case: Mr. Bimal Kumar Bengani vs Mr. Kancharla Krishna Reddy
Court: Telangana High Court, Hyderabad
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Renuka Yara
Case Type & No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 974 of 2025
Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Kumar Bengani (Defendant before trial court)
Respondent: Mr. Kancharla Krishna Reddy (Plaintiff in original suit)
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2025
