IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.2611 of 2010 Date: 18th August, 2010 Between: Duttapati Seshaiah .. Petitioner And Nellore Ramaiah and another. .. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order made in I.A.No.459 of 2010 in A.S.No.38 of 2010 dated 4.6.2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to suspend the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore was dismissed. Petitioner is defendant and respondents are plaintiffs. Respondents laid suit in O.S.No.311 of 2003 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. During the pendency of the said appeal, the present I.A.No.459 of 2010 is filed seeking to suspend the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.311 of 2003. The said application was resisted by the respondents-decree holders. On due consideration of the matter, the appellate Court while dismissing the application vide impugned order dated 4.6.2010, held as under: “On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court was of the view that the settlement deed in Ex.B1 was not acted upon and thereby the petitioner would not get any title under Ex.B.1. When the aforesaid judgments are perused, the principle laid down is when a gift is made and accepted it is irrevocable except by filing a suit in a Court of law. In the present case, China Mangamma executed Ex.B1 in favour of the petitioner and later executed a revocation deed unilaterally and then executed settlement deeds in favour of the respondents and delivered possession under settlement deeds to the respondents, thereby the respondents came into possession of the plaint schedule property during her lifetime. They continued to be in possession. Even if they do not have title, still they are in possession of the property. So, the course open to the petitioner is to go for possession. On perusal of the judgment, this Court did not fin d any material for immediate suspension of the judgment and decree. The points that are urged by the petitioner can be looked into, in disposal of the main appeal. So, this Court did not find strong material to suspend the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed”. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Even during pendency of the suit filed by the respondents, there was an injunction subsisting under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC althrough in favour of respondents. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, the I Additional District Judge, Nellore is directed to dispose of the appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2010 along with A.S.No.39 of 2010, after hearing both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 18.8.2010 DA