HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 1721 OF 2010 Friday, the Twenty Third day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between K.Raghava Rao Petitioner AND Smt. G.Sheela Rajan and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 1721 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 19.03.2010 made in I.A. No. 987 of 2010 in A.S. 89 of 2010 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granting interim stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition of the petitioner herein depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits as decreed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS No. 712 of 2003 dated 20.7.2009. The Respondent herein, who is absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing municipal No. 1-8- 1/B3/F16 HIG, Phase – I, B3/F16, Third Floor, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, filed the above suit for eviction of the petitioner herein and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,44,000/- and for future rents till the same is vacated. The second respondent herein is wife of the petitioner while the third respondent herein is the person who claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from husband of the first respondent herein. The case of the petitioner herein is that he did not take the property on rent from the husband of the first respondent and, as such, there is no question of paying rents for some time and stopping thereafter. It is stated that he has taken the suit schedule property on rent from the third respondent herein in the year 1994 and had been in possession thereafter. The averments also show that the third respondent herein had purchased the suit schedule property under an Agreement of Sale dated 2.1.1982 from the husband of the first respondent and in 1994 she let out the same to the petitioner and subsequently she sold the same to the second respondent herein, which is subject matter of OS No.1143 of 2003 filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 2.1.1982 against the first respondent herein. The learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on joint trial of both the suits, by a common judgment dated 20.7.2009 dismissed the suit OS No. 1143 of 2003 filed by the third respondent herein for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 2.1.1982 and decree the suit OS No. 712 of 2003 filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of rents and mesne profits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal being AS No. 89 of 2010 before the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Along with the appeal, the petitioner herein filed IA No. 987 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2009 in OS No. 712 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the court below while listing the application for counter on 26.4.2010, granted interim stay until further orders subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits as ordered by the trial court on or before 26.4.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant in OS No. 712 of 2003, appellant in the above appeal. As can be seen from the order impugned while calling upon the petitioner herein to file counter by 26.04.2010, interim stay was granted subject to his depositing the arrears of rents and mesne profits before the above date. As such, the petitioner instead of invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to have filed counter seeking vacation of the order impugned herein. It is not the case as if the amount that was ordered to be deposited by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent, to his detriment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Having gone through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 23, 2010 MAS