HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.518 OF 2008 DATE:21-12-2010 BETWEEN Ragala Kanakaiah (died) per L.Rs. …Petitioner AND Vasireddy Suryanarayana …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.518 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is filed to revise the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dated 17.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.1275 of 2007 in O.S.No.155 of 1983. The above application filed under Section 144 of C.P.C. seeking restitution of the possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioner-second respondent was rightly dismissed by the lower Court for the following reasons. The suit in O.S.No.155 of 1983 was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 4.4.1983 alleging that the respondent-plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.54,000/- and took delivery of possession. On contest, the suit was decreed, but it appears, pending the suit, a receiver was appointed who deposited the amounts to the credit of A.T.C.6 of 1983, to which the petitioner and his tenant are parties. On decreeing the suit, petitioner successfully carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.2404 of 1992. On allowing the appeal, the respondent- plaintiff carried the matter in further appeal before the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal, the petitioner filed three applications i.e. C.M.P.Nos.17316, 17317 and 17318 of 1992 for granting temporary injunction restraining the respondent-plaintiff from withdrawing the amounts deposited by the Receiver in the said A.T.C. relating to the suit schedule property and to direct the Receiver to continue in possession of schedule lands. This Court permitted the respondent-plaintiff to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- by furnishing security and vacated the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the C.M.P. filed for appointment of a Receiver as the suit itself is decreed against him, but directed the respondent to furnish security for Rs.60,000/- covering a period of three years from 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994- 95. On allowing the appeal, the respondent-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court and that he filed A.S.M.P.Nos.768 and 769 of 2007 in A.S.No.2404 of 1992 for issuing a direction to the respondent-plaintiff not to object to the petitioner’s harvesting the crop in item-I of suit schedule property; and to make necessary clarifications regarding the claim for mesne profits. Both the A.S.M.Ps. were closed by this Court observing that no further orders need be passed. In the circumstances, once the possession of the property has not been delivered to the respondent pursuant to the decreeing the suit for specific performance, the question of restitution of the possession of the property does not arise. Equally, the direction sought for redeposit of the amount with future interest which was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent pending the suit filed for specific performance does not arise once the suit is decreed in his favour. Therefore, the ascertainment of future profits in the absence of any counter-claim does not arise unless he succeeds in the second appeal. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 Tsr.