IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1303 OF 2009 Between : Uppala Raj Lakshmi .... PETITIONER A N D 1. Linga Sitaramaiah @ Sitaramulu (died) ( per Lrs.) and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1303 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short “C.P.C”.) is directed against the docket order, dated 08.12.2008 in E.P.S.R. No.103003 of 2008 in I.A. No.40 of 1998 in O.S. No.1262 of 1985, on the file of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the proceedings in E.P. were stayed in the application filed under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 C.P.C. to attach the immovable property mentioned in E.P. Schedule and put them to sale to realize the amount of Rs.1,22,558/-. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D.Hr. contended that order of this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No. 6709 of 2008 in the above C.R.P.No.5061 of 2008, would reveal about the stay of the suit but not execution proceedings; that, as final decrees have been passed, the question of stay of all further proceedings in the suit may not arise, and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that stay of all further proceedings in the suit includes stay of execution proceedings as the execution proceedings are continuation of the suit, and so the court below rightly stayed the execution proceedings and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, hence he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 4. I.A. No.626 of 2007 is filed by one Linga Maheshwar Rao (objection petitioner) under Section 47 C.P.C. to declare the final decree passed in I.A. No.39 of 1998, as null and void, in-operative and not binding. The said petition was dismissed by the court below on 18.04.2008 for non-prosecution. Therefore, he filed I.A. No.567 of 2008, to set aside the said dismissal order on the ground that he was suffering from fever and his counsel was engaged in another court. The said petition was dismissed by the court below by order dated 10.09.2008. Challenging the same the said Linga Maheshwar Rao preferred Civil Revision Petition No.5061 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court today confirming the order of the Court below. On the ground that interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.1262 of 1985 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was granted by this Court on 20.11.2008 in C.R.P.M.P.No. 6709 of 2008 in the above C.R.P.No.5061 of 2008, the Court below, vide impugned order, granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.S.R.No.103003 of 2008 in I.A. No.40 of 1998 in O.S.No.1262 of 1985. 5. In the above suit final decree was passed in I.A No.39 of 1998 on 07.08.2006 for division of property by metes and bounds. A commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report. Lots were drawn in trial court by way of chits. First respondent herein (plaintiff) had picked up the chit containing ‘B’ schedule and ‘A’ schedule was allotted to defendants. It is not in dispute that already two final decrees viz., one with regard to share of the petitioner herein in the rent collection and the other one with regard to partition of the property into two parts and allotment of one part thereof to the decree-holder, have been passed, and admittedly the documents of partition decree have been registered. Therefore, the order dated 31.10.2006, passed in I.A.No.40 of 1998 had become final. Thereafter, execution proceedings are filed for realization of the rents awarded to the decree- holder. 6. There cannot be any dispute that when stay is granted in a suit, that includes stay of all further proceedings including execution proceedings. Therefore the trial court is right in staying the E.P.S.R.. Civil Revision Petition No.5061 of 2008 is dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner therein failed to establish sufficient cause for his absence on the day when the petition filed to declare the final decree proceedings as null and void was posted for enquiry, leading to dismissal of the petition for default. Therefore, now, there is no impediment for executing Court to proceed further with the execution proceedings. 7. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J APRIL 16, 2010. YVL