IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1447 OF 2010 Between: Boinpalli Geetha Rani .....PETITIONER AND Karandla Sada Shiva ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1447 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 09.03.2010, in I.A.No.1319 of 2009 in A.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) C.P.C. for grant of stay of execution of decree, dated 20.10.2009, in O.S.No.58 of 2000, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, was dismissed. 2. The respondent herein filed the Suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful possession in respect of 119.88 square yards of land admeasuring 50 feet in length and 21 feet 7 inches in width situated at Municipal part locality of Jagtial town. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent herein is making construction in the suit land and if stay of execution of decree, dated 20.10.2009, in O.S.No.58 of 2000 is not granted, nothing would survive in the appeal suit to decide. 4. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit injunction was granted in favour of the respondent herein. The Suit was filed for mere injunction and not for declaration of right. The appellate court after consideration of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there were no tenable grounds or reasons to stay the execution of the decree, in view of the fact that the public lane to an extent of 21 feet was being used by the general public on which the petitioner has no right or title over it. Therefore, even if the construction is made in the suit land, it would not cause any injustice to the petitioner herein, in view of the fact that the injunction was pending, pending the disposal of the Appeal Suit. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the appellate Court shall dispose of the Appeal Suit as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 19, 2010 MD