THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2 of 2011 Date of Order:02.02.2011 Between: Gokana Vara Prasada Rao. ..Petitioner and Gokana Venkata Narasimha Rao. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 of 2011 ORDER :- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed against the order of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.No.507 of 2010 in A.S.No.250 of 2010, dated 23.12.2010. On decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant, in which he filed the impugned I.A. seeking stay of execution of the decree. The Court below dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner to seek stay of further proceedings in execution; that on the one hand the petitioner refused to vacate the premises when the Court amin approached him with the notice and on the other hand he filed the present petition to stay further proceedings; that his behaviour in O.S.No.838 of 2004 filed for partition and also in O.S.No.690 of 2009 in not allowing the court to proceed with the matter in spite of granting several adjournments clearly goes to show that he wants to sit over the property; and that it is not a fit case to grant interim stay and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. directing the respondent/plaintiff to give an undertaking to the effect that in the event of appeal is allowed he will not have any objection to return the property to the petitioner/defendant and till such time he should not alienate the suit property to the third party. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is a mechanical shop and is closed long back and as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is also not put to use. Since the petitioner filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property and since the dispute is between the father and the son, the discretion exercised by the Court below in dismissing the I.A., does not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J February 2, 2011 Lmv