HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 2957 and 2958 of 2008 Date: 23-07-2010 Between Chundu Ramachandraiah ………… Petitioner And Arikatla Kotireddy …… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 2957 and 2958 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since these two Revisions are connected and arise out of the same proceedings, they are taken up for disposal together. The petitioner is the Judgment debtor. His grievance is that even though he has filed an Appeal in A.S.No.61 of 2006 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.61 of 2004, which were sought to be executed, and the Appeal was subsequently allowed, in the meanwhile, though he has come forward before the Execution Court with all the reasons pointing out the irregularities in the Judgment passed in the suit, the Execution Court proceeded with the execution proceedings in posthaste manner and conducted sale. Hence, the Revisions. Heard both sides. Admittedly the petitioner has not moved any stay Application pending disposal of the Appeal since 2006. It is only when the matter has come up for sale in the execution proceedings, the petitioner has woken up and sought to move the Court and that too only the Execution Court, but not the Appellate Court. In the absence of any stay of execution of the decree granted by the Appellate Court, it is always open for the Execution Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and nothing can be found fault in such procedure. In these circumstances, I do not find any grounds to warrant interference with the procedure, which is under challenge in these two Revisions. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 23-07-2010 YCR