HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1623 of 2021
Date:29.10.2021
Between:
Manthana Ramu S/o.Venkata Narayana,
Aged about 42 yrs, Occu : Employee,
R/o.H.No.2-12-342/4, (Opposite to H.No.2-12-372),
Vidyaranyapuri-KUC Area,
Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District & another
.....Petitioners
And
Pittala Venkateshwarlu S/o.Thirupathaiah,
Aged about 64 yrs, Occu : Employee,
Previsously R/o.H.No.15-3-3, Rangampet,
Warangal,
Presently R/o.H.No.B-29, S.V.Temple Areaa,
Mandamarri Town, Adilabad District & others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1623 of 2021
ORDER :
Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and none appeared for the respondents.
2. This revision is preferred against the order of first appellate Court in I.A.No.252 of 2020 in A.S.No.79 of 2020 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1122 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Petitioners herein preferred A.S.No.79 of 2020 and in the said suit, they filed interlocutory application praying to suspend the operation of judgment and decree of the trial Court.
3. Having considered the matter in detail and having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court in allowing O.S.No.1122 of 2009, the first appellate Court declined to grant suspension of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1122 of 2009.
4. The first appellate Court observed that the prayer to suspend the operation of judgment and decree would amount to disturbing the possession claim of plaintiffs in the suit and having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court, no such relief can be granted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that the trial Court ordered maintenance of status quo. Therefore, the first appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect and ought to have ordered for maintenance of status quo till the appeal suit is decided.
-3-
6. From the order in I.A.No.282 of 2020 in O.S.No.1122 of 2009, it is noticed that while recognizing the possession of plaintiffs, pending consideration of appeal, stated to have been preferred by the petitioners, the trial Court granted limited relief of stay of execution of judgment and decree for a period of 15 days on the ground that some activity was going on and if such activity is permitted pending consideration of appeal, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.
7. The limited relief granted by the trial Court cannot enure to the benefit of petitioners permanently. The appellate Court considered the issue in detail and having regard to the facts of the case, declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief prayed by the petitioners. The suit itself is for granting permanent injunction. The trial Court considered the entire evidence on record, discarded the plea urged on behalf of the petitioners and declared in clear terms that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and their possession should not be disturbed. That being the finding, prima- facie, I do not see any error in the first appellate Court rejecting the prayer to suspend the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1122 of 2009. I do not see any merit in this revision.
8. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of this Revision and has no bearing in considering A.S.No.79 of 2020 by the first appellate Court. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 29th October, 2021 Rds -4- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1623 of 2021 Date:29.10.2021 Rds