IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.606 of 2010 Between: Kotte Padma ..Petitioner AND Kotte Mallesham and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet in I.A.No.1 of 2010 in O.S.No.277 of 2007 dated 25-01-2010. The suit in O.S.No.277 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioner herein against the respondents herein claiming ownership and possession of the suit schedule property of Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy.No.634 of Alwal village and consequential declaration of title and possession and a permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The suit was decreed ex parte on 5-11-2009 and the defendants filed I.A.No.1066 of 2009 on 1-12-2009 for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is pending. The defendants then filed the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2010 claiming that the plaintiff/the revision petitioner is trying to get her name incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of the ex parte decree and if she succeeded in her activities, it would lead to complications. Therefore, they desired that the ex parte decree be suspended. The request was opposed by the revision petitioner contending that the allegations of the defendants are false and they cannot maintain the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court passed the impugned order stating that the powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are very wide and available when there is no specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court also noted that the revision petitioner was alleged to have manipulated the passbooks and opined that attempts to manipulate the entries in the revenue records should be curtailed and therefore, suspended the ex parte decree till disposal of I.A.No.1066 of 2009 observing that no prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner by such an order. The said order is challenged herein by the revision petitioner contending that such a power of suspending the ex parte decree does not vest with the trial Court and when it granted the decree on the basis of oral evidence and Exs.A.1 to A.4, the trial Court could not have made the observations it made in the impugned order. The respondents were alleged to be making illegal attempts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff taking advantage of the suspension. It was also pointed out that there was a status quo order, which continued all along in the present suit and hence, the jurisdiction of the trial Court was not exercised properly and reasonably. Heard Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and though notice of the revision is served on the 1st respondent and also on the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent before the trial Court, there was no appearance on their behalf in this revision. The point that arises for consideration is the legality and sustainability of the impugned order. The decree in favour of the revision petitioner, though ex parte, was one declaring her ownership and possession over the suit schedule property and granting permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with such possession and enjoyment by the revision petitioner. The trial Court must have been obviously satisfied with the claim of the revision petitioner before granting the ex parte decree. The ex parte decree continues to be operative till any orders setting it aside are passed in I.A.No.1066 of 2009 and what was alleged in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 of 2010 is an attempt by the revision petitioner to have her name incorporated in the revenue records on the basis of the ex parte decree. If such apprehended action was restrained, the trial Court would have satisfactorily protected the rights and interests of the defendants pending a decision on the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the trial Court, which itself granted the ex parte decree, obviously on being satisfied about the proof of the claim of the plaintiff, could not have straight away accepted the version of the defendants that the revision petitioner manipulated the pass books without any basis. Any attempted manipulation of revenue records also could not have been presumed in the absence of any material or evidence before the trail Court and suspending the entire decree is stated by the revision petitioner to have resulted in attempts by the defendants to interfere with her possession. Under the circumstances, irrespective of the question whether the trial Court could have invoked its inherent powers to grant such an order or not, the suspension of the entire decree pending I.A.No.1066 of 2009 does not appear to be called for. If the revision petitioner is restrained from making any efforts for getting any changes in the entries in the revenue records till disposal of I.A.No.1066 of 2009, the same would sufficiently answer the apprehensions of the defendants. Directing the revision petitioner to maintain status quo in respect of entries in the revenue records concerning the suit property till disposal of I.A.No.1066 of 2009 will, therefore, be reasonable and just. In the result, the impugned order in I.A.No.1 of 2010 in O.S.No.277 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet dated 25-01-2010 is set aside. But, both parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo concerning the entries in the revenue records in respect of suit property till disposal of I.A.No.1066 of 2009. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-07-2010 Ksn