THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1371 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.161 of 2009 in O.S.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Mahaboobnagar, whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC and granted stay of passing of final decree. The petitioners herein are defendants 9 to 12 in O.S.No.19 of 2006. Respondents 1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and also for cancellation of registered sale deeds and gift deeds. The parties went on trial and adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The suit came to be decreed by the Junior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The operative portion of the judgment passed in the said suit reads as under: “In the result the suit is decreed in part as follows: a. The plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in plaint-A schedule properties and the defendants are directed to put the plaintiffs in peaceful possession of their 1/5th share within two months. b. The registered sale deed Nos.963/82 dt.10.05.1982, gift deeds No.3689/87, 3690/87 and 3691/87 dt.29.12.1987 registered in favour of D5 to D8 and also registered sale deeds No.808/78, dt.27.05.1978, 1264/83, dt.28.05.1983, 1265/83 dt.28.05.1983 and 1346/88 dt.03.05.1988 registered in favour of D15 to D17 are hereby cancelled subject to working out of equities of the plaintiffs share. c. The plaintiffs are not entitled for an amount of Rs.3000/- from D1 to D4 towards damages derived from the plaint schedule land. d. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of deletion of name of Sai Reddy and D5 to D8 in the revenue records against the suit lands. e. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim 1/5th share in the compensation amount of B.schedule lands acquired by D14. In the circumstances of the case both parties directed to bear their own costs. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009, the petitioners filed A.S.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and moved I.A.No.161/2009 seeking stay of execution of the decree dated 20.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2006. The learned Additional District Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the I.A. to the extent of passing final decree alone. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no proceedings can be taken up pursuant to the trial Court decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 2006 pending disposal of A.S.No.55 of 2009 and therefore the entire judgment passed in O.S.No.19 of 2006 is required to be suspended. He further contends that under the guise of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 2006, there is every likelihood of the petitioners being dispossessed from the lands in their occupation. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar is explicit that passing of final decree alone is stayed. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that they are likely to be dispossessed cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the learned II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, is directed to dispose of A.S.No.55 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11-04-2011 Rns