HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. Nos.2041 & 2067 of 2010 Dated 28-09-2010 Between: V.David ……..Petitioner Vs. V.George Stephen ………Respondent HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. Nos.2041 & 2067 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both these revision petitions are filed against the orders dated 02-09-2010 passed in I.A.No.2449 of 2009 in I.A.No.39 of 2009 in A.S.No.140 of 2009 for extension of stay orders passed in I.A.No.39 of 2009 and I.A.No.2448 of 2009 in A.S.No.140 of 2009 for extending two weeks’ time for depositing the mesne profits by extending the conditional orders dated 07-05-2009 in I.A.No.39 of 2009, respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.1321 of 2005 on the file of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein for eviction of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.140 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with an application in I.A.No.39 of 2009 for stay of execution. The lower appellate Court by orders dated 07-05-2009, granted stay by giving four weeks’ time for depositing mesne profits. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said order. Then he filed the present two applications as stated supra contending that his counsel went to U.S.A to see his daughter and as and when he returned to India, he filed these two applications and therefore there was no willful default on his part to comply with the order dated 07-05-2009. The lower appellate Court, after considering both these applications, by separate orders dated 02-09-2009, dismissed both the applications on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 07-05-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed these two revisions to set aside the orders dated 02-09-2009 passed in I.A.Nos.2449 and 2448 of 2009, respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and having regard to the reasons mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of both the petitions, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to comply with the order dated 07-05-2009. 5. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 02-09-2009 in I.A.Nos.2449 and 2448 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is directed to comply with the conditional order dated 07-05-2009 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2009 by depositing the mesne profits within a period of two weeks from today. In default to comply with the said order, the impugned orders dated 02-09-2009 shall become operative. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to the disposal of both the revision petitions, the applications in C.R.P.M.P.No.2744 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.2041 of 2010 and C.R.P.M.P.(S.R.).No.11592 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.2067 of 2010 are also disposed of. ______________________ September 28, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. by 01-10-2010. B/o. KVR