THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3689 of 2009 Dated:11.08.2009 Between: Sri Pulavarthi Maruthi Rao, S/o.Ranganayakulu, Hindu, aged 21 years, Student, R/o.D.No.21-7, Ankanagudem, Pedavegi Mandal, W.G.District, And another. ...Petitioners and Sri Vandani Venkata Vara Prasad, S/o.Tata Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, R/o.D.No.1-4, R/o.Pedapadu, W.G.District, And another. ...Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3689 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners herein are children of second respondent (defendant). They are aggrieved by the order of the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in refusing stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No.98 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, obtained by the first respondent herein . Therefore, they filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. Plaintiff obtained decree for money in a sum of about Rs.60,000/- . As the defendant did not pay the amount, he filed E.P.No.619 of 2005 for attachment and sale of immovable property of the defendant. At that stage, petitioners filed claim petition, being E.A.No.321 of 2007, under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), claiming 2/3rd share in the E.P schedule property. They also alleged that they obtained a decree in O.S.No.279 of 2004 wherein their right to 1/3rd share was declared. The executing Court dismissed the claim petition, being E.A.No.321 of 2007, on 19.06.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed A.S.No.136 of 2009, and in I.A.No.598 of 2009 they prayed for stay of execution of decree obtained by plaintiff. As noticed supra, the same was dismissed by the appellate Judge on 06.08.2009. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order of stay without reasons is unsustainable. He nextly contends that the petitioners’ share in the E.P schedule property has been declared by the civil Court in O.S.No.279 of 2004 and if the E.P by the plaintiff is not stayed, it would result in injustice to the petitioners. The submission that the impugned order does not contain reasons cannot be accepted. It was an ex parte application for stay, and having perused the contents of the petition and counter, the appellate Judge came to the conclusion that it is not a case for stay. In a case of this nature, elaborate reasons would not be necessary. Admittedly, the petitioners filed O.S.No.279 of 2004 for partition and obtained decree. In all probability, they were also aware of O.S.No.98 of 2004 filed by plaintiff against their father for recovery of money. Nothing prevented them to approach the Court with their grievance. They waited till the decree was passed and filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC only when the property was attached and brought to sale. Having regard to these facts, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the appellate Judge. However, this Court observes that the appeal, being A.S.No.136 of 2009, may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition, subject to above observation, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.08.2009 vs