IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2641 of 2011 Between: Peddi Bharati Sarojini @ Sarojini ..... PETITIONER AND Peddi Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2641 of 2011 O R D E R: Petitioner herein is the respondent in RCC.6/1999 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judgde, Guntur seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property. The said RCC.6/1999 was allowed ordering eviction. As the petitioner failed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent/decree holder, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.8/2009 for execution of the eviction order passed in RCC.6/1999. In the said E.P., the petitioner herein filed E.A.54/2011 under Or.21 Rule-29 r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking to grant stay of the execution proceedings pending disposal of CRP.5131/2010 on the file of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S.238/1997 on the file of the 1st Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for declaration of title with respect to the schedule property and the same is pending. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an injunction application which was dismissed, against which, the petitioner herein filed CRP.5131/2010 and this Court by order dated 03.11.2010 granted ad interim injunction in CRPMP.6823/2010 against the respondent herein and the Branch Manager of LIC of India, Guntur from evicting the petitioner herein from the suit schedule property. It is stated that in spite of bringing the said facts, the Executing Court dismissed her application, against which, this Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. I am of the opinion that under Or.21 Rule-29 CPC the Rent Controller who allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent, is not entitled to grant stay of execution of the eviction proceedings. I am also of the prima facie opinion that under Or.21 Rule-29 CPC where the suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree or against whom a decree was passed, the Court, may, on such terms, as to the security or otherwise, stay the execution of the decree until the suit is decided. In the instant case, against the petitioner herein a decree was passed for her eviction and the petitioner filed a suit O.S.238/1997 on the file of the 1st Addl.Senior Civil Judgde, Guntur which is pending. A reading of Order 21 Rule-29 CPC makes it clear that where the suit is pending, that Court is entitled to stay the execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided. Therefore, the Court below rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Malladi Ravi Sankar vs. Ananda Raju[1]. If the injunction is subsisting against the respondents, it is for the respondent to obey the said order. If the respondent disobeyed the said order, it is for him to face the consequences for violating the orders of this Court. I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 22.07.2011 Dsr [1] 2007(3) ALT 595