HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.441 of 2011 Date: October 21, 2011 Between: Y.S. Badrinath … Petitioner And 1. Neela & 6 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.441 of 2011 O R D E R: The third defendant in the suit in O.S. No.24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, filed an appeal in A.S. No.40 of 2010 before the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2010 passed by the trial court. 2. By order dated 28.01.2011, the appellate court granted stay pending the appeal. The order reads as under: “Heard both sides. Stay granted pending the appeal except passing of the final decree by the trial court.” Apprehending that the aforestated stay order permitted the trial court to pass the final decree, the third defendant/appellant in A.S. No.40 of 2010 filed the present revision. 3. This Court, by order dated 04.3.2011, granted interim stay of all proceedings pursuant to the order dated 28.01.2011 passed in I.A. No.639 of 2010 in A.S. No.40 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Respondents 1 to 5 in the C.R.P. being the plaintiffs in the suit, filed a petition to vacate the aforestated stay order. 4. With the consent of the counsel, the main C.R.P. is taken up for disposal. The suit O.S. No.24 of 2006 was filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 28.6.2010. In appeal in A.S. No.40 of 2010, the appellate court granted stay under Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. 5. In appeals of this nature, the normal course adopted by the appellate court would be to permit the final decree proceedings to go on up to the stage of passing of the final decree, which alone would be stayed. The intention of the appellate court in this case also appears to be the same but the language used in the order seems to have caused an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that the trial court was permitted to pass the final decree also. 6. This Court finds no such ambiguity in the order. In any event, for the satisfaction of the parties it is made clear that pending the appeal in A.S. No.40 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, the final decree proceedings in O.S. No.24 of 2006 may go on, but the final decree shall not be passed. 7. With the above clarification, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 21, 2011. BSB