IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 2 4 OF 2010. Between: A. Dayakar Yadav … Revision Petitioner V/s. A. Jangaiah Yadav … Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Sri V.Venkata Mayur Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 2 4 OF 2010 O R D E R : Aggrieved by entertaining EP.No.13 of 2010 in O.S.No. 2590 of 2004 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the inaction on the part of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in entertaining the execution petition is quite contrary on the ground that as against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed in OS.No.2590 of 2004 by the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Revision Petitioner-Judgment debtor filed an appeal, being AS.No.86 of 2010 pending on the file of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. In A.S.No. 86 of 2010 the petitioner also filed application seeking stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed in OS.No. 2590 of 2004 which is pending. When an appeal filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed in OS.No.2590 of 2004 by the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is pending on the file of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is pending consideration, the learned trial Judge ought not to have registered the E.P. Instead the learned Judge ought to have granted stay of E.P.no. 13 of 2010, as the stay application is coming up for hearing. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that alongwith appeal an interlocutory application had been filed before the lower appellate court seeking to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment and decree. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the records. 6. Under the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner is given liberty to file the same before the appellate court. The petitioner can agitate his rights in the Interlocutory application, which has to be filed before the appellate court. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 22-03-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 2 4 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 4 9 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L Date: 16-04-2010