THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.175 AND 466 OF 2010 Dated:23.07.2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.175 OF 2010 Between: V.Mariamma .. Petitioner And C.Tirupathaiah Setty and others .. Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.466 OF 2010 Between: V.Mariamma .. Petitioner And C.Ramu and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.175 AND 466 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Revision Petitions are interconnected. Hence, they are being disposed of through this common order. The petitioner herein instituted O.S.No.113 of 2008 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, seeking delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. On contest, the Court below was pleased to agree with the plaintiff, and accordingly, decreed the suit by an order, dated 07.07.2009. Despite the said decree, as the respondents herein did not vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, the petitioner filed E.P.No.52 of 2009 for execution of the said decree. However, the Court below dismissed the said Execution Petition, on the ground that an appeal filed by the respondents before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkarnool, is pending. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed E.A.No.134 of 2009 to review the order, dated 07.09.2009, passed in E.P.No.52 of 2009. Through its order, dated 26.11.2009, the Court below dismissed the said E.A. Hence, these revisions. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree of the trial Court is not stayed or suspended by the lower appellate Court. Unless and until the said judgment and decree of the trial Court is stayed or suspended, the trial Court is not justified in refusing to grant the relief sought for in the Execution Petition. Mere pendency of an appeal is not a ground to reject the relief and the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to get the decree executed. However, across the Bar, it is stated by both the learned counsel that the appeal preferred by the respondents herein against O.S.No.113 of 2008 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkarnool, is listed for final hearing on 30.07.2010 and they are willing to co-operate with the Court for early disposal. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the lower appellate Court to hear the arguments on 30.07.2010 and dispose of the appeal at the earliest i.e., within a period of 15 days thereafter. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are arrears of rent. The lower appellate Court, while disposing of the said appeal, shall take into consideration the aspect of arrears of rent and ensure that they are paid at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 23.07.2010 KH