THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2651 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.649 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally. The respondent herein filed the said suit for eviction of the defendant/revision petitioners and also for recovery of arrears of rents and mesne profits. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 24.11.2010. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the Revision petitioners filed an Appeal (AS (SR) No.3609 of 2011) in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District. Since there was delay in preferring the appeal, the Revision petitioners also filed I.A.No.962 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. The said application was dismissed for default and therefore the Revision petitioner filed I.A.(SR).No.8468 of 2011 for restoration of I.A.No.962 of 2011. In the meanwhile, it appears that the decree-holder/respondent herein filed E.P.No.57 of 2011 for delivery of possession of the suit schedule properly. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India pleading that I.A.(SR).No.8468 of 2011 filed by the Revision petitioners for restoration of I.A.No.962 of 2011 is yet to be heard and in the meanwhile if the respondent is allowed to proceed with E.P.No.57 of 2011 the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated and therefore it is necessary in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings in E.P.No.57 of 2011. This Court by order dated 6.9.2011 called for a report from the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District as to the stage of the proceedings pending in the said Court. In compliance with the same, the report dated 6.9.2011 has been received from the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District stating that I.A.No.2163 of 2011 filed for restoration of I.A.No.962 of 2011 was posted to 7.9.2011. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that from 7.9.2011 the said I.A.No.2163 of 2011 was adjourned to 14.9.2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. As could be seen from the report submitted by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, the application filed by the Revision petitioners for restoration of I.A.No.962 of 2011 is under consideration. Even assuming that the decree-holder is pressing for execution of the decree in O.S.No.649 of 2009, it is always open to the revision petitioners to move the appropriate applications either before the lower Appellate Court or before the Executing Court for stay of execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact the petitioners have already filed E.A.No.43 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 26 of C.P.C. for stay of the execution proceedings. Hence it is not open to the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the revision petitioners to pursue the applications pending before the Courts below. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09-09-2011 Rkk/gbs