HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2173 of 2011 Date: August 04, 2011 Between: Metta (alias Matta) Naradudu … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff And Yerra Laxmikantham … Respondent/ Appellant/ Respondent/ Defendant * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2173 of 2011 O R D E R: In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 21st March 2011 passed in C.M.A. No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, whereby and whereunder the C.M.A. filed by the respondent herein was allowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit against the defendant seeking a declaration that sale deed dated 08.10.2001 is a sham and nominal document and to cancel the same. He had also sought the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed I.A. No.283 of 2009 in O.S. No.58 of 2009 praying to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering in any manner in his possession over the petition schedule property and not to alienate the property to third party pending disposal of the suit. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Takkali, by order dated 12.3.2010, allowed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed C.M.A. No.4 of 2010. The said C.M.A. has been allowed by the impugned order against which the plaintiff filed the present revision. 5. The petitioner’s specific case is that he is the owner of the petition schedule property. He purchased the same from one Mitta Mallesu on 01.02.1993 under a registered sale deed. The petitioner applied for a loan to the S.C. Corporation, Srikakulam, to purchase a tractor and he was sanctioned the loan through the State Bank of India, Tekkali and he had purchased a tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 30 J 1442 and 1443. When he was unable to pay the loan amount, the respondent came forward to discharge the loan and as the respondent promised to discharge the debt amount, the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent did not pay the loan amount to the bank as per the understanding made in the sale deed dated 08.10.2001. It is also his case that subsequently the Government issued orders waiving the loans and as a result of which the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tekkali, issued No Due Certificate dated 06.11.2009 to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. 6. The specific case of the respondent is that the State Bank of India, Tekkali, had filed a suit O.S. No.14 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompet, and that as per the agreement of sale the respondent cleared the loan amount when the bank accepted One Time Settlement of Rs.1.00 lakh for discharging the entire loan amount. His case is that Exs.R-4 to R-8 reveal that the respondent had cleared the loan amount to the State Bank of India, Tekkali, as per the agreement Ex.R-1. It is also his case that after execution of Ex.R- 1, the respondent was put in possession of the property. 7. Whether the bank issued No Due Certificate after the Government waived the loans or only on payment of Rs.1.00 lakh by the respondent is the main issue to be decided by the trial Court. 8. Without going into the facts of the case, I consider it just and reasonable to direct both the parties not to alienate the property pending disposal of the suit. 9. Subject to the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: August 04, 2011. BSB