THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 547 OF 2010 Dated 30-6-2010 Between: S.Andani. ..Petitioner. And: Ch.Narasimha Reddy and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 547 of 2010 Order: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in I.A. No.2055 of 2009 in A.S. No. 209 of 2009 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows. Respondent No.1 herein filed O.S. No.994 of 2001 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. Subsequently, respondent No.1 died and respondents 2 to 4 herein are the legal representatives of respondent No.1. The said suit was decreed on 21.04.2009 directing the petitioner herein to vacate the suit schedule property and to handover possession of the same by removing the structures thereon within one month from the date of the judgment and decree and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of vacating and handing over possession of the suit schedule property to respondents 2 to 4 herein. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the revision petitioner herein filed an appeal in A.S. No. 209 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The revision petitioner also filed I.A. No. 2055 of 2009 in A.S. No.209 of 2009, seeking to stay the operation of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009 in O.S. No. 994 of 2001, wherein the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has passed the orders as follows. “In the result, the stay of operation of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009 passed in O.S. No.994 of 2001 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is granted subject to the condition of petitioner depositing the suit costs and arrears of damages within four weeks and also to deposit the future damages at the same rate of Rs.2000/- p.m., on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petition is accordingly allowed. If the petitioner fails to comply with the said conditions, the stay granted, shall stand vacated.” Challenging the above said order dated 23.12.2009 in I.A. No.2055 of 2009 in A.S. No.209 of 2009, the present revision has been filed. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the petitioner is not a tenant and that he has been claiming his rights as purchaser of the property and, therefore, he cannot be directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month. It is also his submission that the petitioner has filed an application before the appellate Court to receive the agreement of sale as additional evidence and the said application has been pending consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellate Court, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, has passed reasonable orders and nothing to interfere with the same. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed the copy of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009 passed in O.S. No.994 of 2001 nor the copy of the agreement of sale said to have been filed before the appellate Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered a decree in a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. However, by virtue of stay granted by the appellate Court, the petitioner herein has been in continuous possession of the suit schedule property. It may be a fact that the petitioner has taken a specific stand that he is not a tenant of respondents 2 to 4, but that does not mean that the appellate Court is not empowered to put any condition for staying the operation of the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court is empowered, for sufficient cause, to order stay of execution of such decree on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. There are no merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner could not comply with the impugned orders and that he may be granted some time to comply with the impugned orders. In the circumstances, the petitioner herein is granted four (4) weeks time from today to comply with the impugned orders and the amount already deposited by him in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court shall be given credit to. If both the parties cooperate, the appellate Court may dispose of the appeal as early as possible. Subject to the observations made supra, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 30.06.2010 Dvs/Nsr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 547 OF 2010 Dated 30-6-2010