IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2 8 0 6 OF 2010 Between: Dammani Pedda Lingamaiah & 2-Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The Assistant Engineer (Operation) AP Transco, Birkur Nizamabad district & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners : Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 8 0 6 OF 2010. O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-2010 passed in I.A.No. 176 of 2009 in A.S.NO.82 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Bodhan. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in I.A.No. 176 of 2009 in A.S.No. 82 of 2009. I.A.No. 176 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners therein under Order-41, Rule 5 read with section 151 of CPC seeking stay of operation and execution of the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in OS.No.35 of 2007, dated 11-8-2009. By order dated 15-3-2010, the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bodhan partly allowed and granted stay in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents staying the execution of the decree in OS.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan on condition of the petitioner furnishing undertaking for due performance of decree or order as ultimately binding on him and deposit one-fourth (1/4) of the decretal amount and suit costs within one week from the date of passing of the order, failing which the petition stands dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents therein filed the present civil revision petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in OS.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. OS.No.35 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants therein seeking prayer to pass a decree for Rs.3 lakhs in favour of the plaintiffs towards damages along with interest @ 25% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and award costs. After full-fledged trial on 11-8-2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.1,71,424-00 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further directed to pay the decretal amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization of the entire decretal amount. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein have filed A.S.No.82 of 2009 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Bodhan along with the appeal the appellant also filed I.A.No.176 of 2009 under Order-41, Rule 5 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of operation and execution of the judgment and decree in OS.No.35 of 2007 dated 11-8-2009. After hearing the matter, the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) partly allowed the petition and granted stay on the condition of the petitioner furnishing undertaking for due performance of the decree or order as may be ultimately binding on him and depositing one-fourth (1/4) of the decretal amount and suit costs within a period of one week from the date of passing of the order, failing which the petition stands dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents herein filed suit for damage and after full fledged trial the said suit was decreed and aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein, who are respondents in the Civil Revision Petition had filed an appeal, AS.No.82 of 2009 along with I.A.No.176 of 2009 seeking stay pending appeal. He submits that normally when stay is granted in the matter of this nature, the stay will be granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount within a reasonable time and also permitting the said amount to be withdrawn by the respondents therein. But contra to this normality, the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) strangely granted stay on the condition of filing undertaking towards the entire decretal amount and further imposed condition of depositing one- fourth (1/4) of the decretal amount within a period of one week and no clause is incorporated therein permitting the respondents to withdraw the amount so deposited. Therefore, the order is illegal. 5. Admittedly, it is an interim order passed in the interlocutory application filed by the appellant in the appeal, no steps were taken by the petitioners herein, who are respondents in the said interlocutory application seeking permission from the court to permit the respondents to withdraw the amounts and no such petition is filed seeking modification of the order in any manner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any error committed by the learned first appellate court in passing the impugned order. Therefore, I do not see any reason to set aside the impugned. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. It is needless to observe that it is always open to the petitioners herein to make appropriate application before the court below seeking appropriate relief before the court below in A.S.No.82 of 2009. ______________________ Justice G. Chandraiah 09-07-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2806 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 181 Date: 09-07-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L