IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 3648 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: 1 Velechati Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Narayana Hilton Towers, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District. 2 Gummadi Srinivasa Murthy, S/o. Veerappa Naidu, Hilton Towers, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Marella Durga Manimala, W/o. Venugopalakrishna Murthy, R/o. Patamatalanka, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.V.ANIL KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.3648 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.07.2009, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the application I.A.No.2285 of 2009 in A.S.No.164 of 2009, filed under Order-41 Rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings, including the execution of the decree, dated 25.03.2009, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S.No.869 of 2002. 3. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, before the trial Court. The suit is for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property, to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the petitioners and the respondent will be referred to as “the defendants” and “the plaintiff”, respectively. 5. The trial Court, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, decreed the suit, with certain directions, against which the defendants have preferred an appeal A.S.No.164 of 2009, along with the present application I.A.No.2285 of 2009, which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. The trial below has granted three months time to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property but the appeal preferred by the defendants, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, is pending consideration. If no interim order of stay, as prayed for by the defendants, is granted, obviously the defendants have to vacate the suit schedule property and the very purpose of preferring the appeal, may become redundant or in the event of the success of the defendants in the appeal, before the lower appellate Court, the residual Jurisdiction of the Court has to be involved, in which further complications may crop up. Therefore, to avoid any complications, I feel it expedient to allow the present Civil Revision Petition and stay all further proceedings, pursuant to the judgment and decree, dated 25.03.2009, passed by the trial Court, in O.S.No.869 of 2002, has to be granted. 7. However, it is also equally imperative for this Court to direct the lower appellate Court to dispose of the main appeal A.S.No.164 of 2009 with utmost expedition, on priority basis. 8. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the judgment and decree, dated 25.03.2009, passed by the trial Court, in O.S.No.869 of 2002. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 07TH AUGUST 2009 KRK/ LMV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.3648 of 2009 07TH AUGUST 2009