THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4447 of 2010 DATE: 20.04.2011 Between : Abburi Vara Prasad … Petitioner And Sri Suserla Ramachandra Reddy … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4447 of 2010 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India complaining that I.A.No.1213 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioner in A.S.No.58 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur was not decided. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.136 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole for ejectment and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties and also for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.56,100/- as well as damages of Rs.3,300/- per month from the date of the suit till the delivery of possession. The said suit was decreed with costs by judgment dated 08.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed A.S.No.58 of 2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. Along with Appeal, he filed I.A.No.1213 of 2010 seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.136 of 2008. Alleging that the said application is kept pending and in the meanwhile the respondent/decree- holder filed E.P.No.59 of 2010 for execution of the decree, the present Revision Petition has been filed. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that in response to the notice ordered in I.A.No.1213 of 2010, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter and the matter was heard by the Court below on two occasions and orders were reserved. However, as the Presiding Officer was transferred, no orders could be pronounced and subsequently the matter underwent several adjournments at the request of the revision petitioner himself. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there were absolutely no lapses on the part of the respondent and the present revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. It is also contended that the petitioner failed to make out any case for grant of stay of the decree granted by the trial Court. At the outset, it is to be noticed that as the appeal is pending on the file of the Court below, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on merits. However, so far as interim stay sought in I.A.No.1213 of 2010 is concerned, having regard to the fact that the judgment under Appeal included a decree for payment of money towards arrears of rent and damages, grant of unconditional stay is impermissible under law. In the circumstances, instead of sending the matter back to the Court below for consideration of the application for stay, I deem it appropriate to consider and dispose of the said application for which the learned counsel for both parties agreed. Accordingly, I.A.No.1213 of 2010 is hereby disposed of with the following directions: “The operation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.136 of 2008 shall remain stayed till the disposal of A.S.No.58 of 2010 subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits half of the decretal amount together with costs within a period of six weeks from today to the credit of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole, failing which it is open to the respondent/plaintiff herein to execute the decree. On such deposit, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.” There shall also be a direction to the Court below to dispose of the main Appeal following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 20 .04.2011 GBS