HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.3133 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dated 06-07-2011 in E.P.No.103 of 2009 in O.S.No.114 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guruzala. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, the 2nd respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2001 and the petitioner is the auction purchaser. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent filed the suit against the 2nd respondent for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed on 17-04-2008. As the decretal amount was not paid, the 1st respondent filed E.P. and during proceedings in E.P. are pending, the property of the 2nd respondent was sold and the petitioner became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 31-08-2010. At this stage, the 2nd respondent herein filed an appeal along with an application in I.A.No.747 of 2009 to condone the delay of 492 days in filing the appeal, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, and the said application was dismissed on 02-06-2010. Against which, the 2nd respondent filed C.R.P.No.3363 of 2010 on the file of this Court. This Court initially granted interim stay of all proceedings including the sale proceedings in E.A.No.103 of 2010 and subsequently, the said revision petition was allowed by order dated 11-02-2011 condoning the delay on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that being the highest bidder, he deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,59,000/-, but however, the trial Court postponing the matter without passing any orders in the execution petition under the premise that the interim stay granted by this Court in C.R.P.No.3363 of 2010 is still in force though the revision petition itself was disposed of. Hence, he approached this Court and filed the present revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The scope of the earlier revision petition filed by the 2nd respondent is only with regard to the condonation of delay and though this court pending the revision petition granted stay of execution proceedings in the E.P. on condition of paying 50% half of the decretal amount by the 2nd respondent, the stay cannot be said to be continued even after disposal of that revision petition. It is for the 2nd respondent to get appropriate stay orders again in the appeal pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Further, the executing Court proceed with the matter without adjourning the matter from time to time as if the stay is operating as was granted by this Court. 6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the stay said to have been granted by this Court in C.R.P.No.3363 of 2010, which was already disposed of, cannot be said to be continued and it is for the 2nd respondent to obtain appropriate stay orders in the appeal pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, and the executing Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 05 -08-2011 Kvr