Telangana High Court
Doddi Parvathalu vs Gude Parvathalu on 2 November, 2021
Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy
1
crp_2989_2019
AVR, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.2989 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code
of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') assailing the impugned order
dated 25.11.2019 in E.A.No.15 of 2019 in E.A.No.3 of 2019 in
E.P.No.5 of 2019 passed under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section
151 CPC, to stay the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2019
passed in O.S.No.88 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, till the disposal of
Appeal Suit filed at District Court, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar.
The main grounds of revision are that the impugned order is
contrary to law; that the Court below erred in dismissing the
E.A.No.15 of 2019 filed by the petitioners for grant of stay of
judgment and decree passed in the O.S.No.88 of 2013 dated
05.03.2019 till the disposal of AS(SR) No.8681 of 2019 without
properly appreciating the facts of the case; that the Court below
ought to have seen that when once the appeal suit is filed against
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.88 of 2013, no prejudice would
be caused to the respondent even if the stay of proceedings of
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.88 of 2013 is granted; that the
Court below ought to have seen that during the pendency of ASSR
No.8681 of 2019, if the proceedings in E.P.No.5 of 2019 are allowed
the purpose would be defeated; that the respondent under the
pretext of Police protection granted in E.A.No.3 of 2019, is trying to
grab the property belonging to the petitioners; that the Court below
crp_2989_2019
AVR, J
has failed to appreciate the facts and evidence of PW.1; accordingly
prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dated
21.11.2019 passed in E.A.No.15 of 2019 in E.A.No.3 of 2019 in
E.P.No.5 of 2019, or pass any such orders as deemed fit.
Notice served to the respondent/decree holder/plaintiff.
Heard on both sides.
The contention of the petitioners as per the grounds of civil
revision are that petitioners are the defendants/judgment debtors
in O.S.No.88 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District; that suit was filed for
perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property; the land
admeasuring two acres in Survey No.326 situated at Thulekhurd
village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The suit was
decreed after full length trial on giving opportunity to both sides to
lead evidence on 05.03.2019, and perpetual injunction was granted
in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder against defendants/judgment
debtors and their henchmen from causing any interference in the
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule
property.
It is the case of the petitioners/defendants/judgment debtors
that aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.88 of 2013
dated 05.03.2019, the petitioners have preferred an appeal and the
same is pending before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District. As per the grounds in this civil revision petition, it is only
mentioned that AS(SR) No.8681 of 2019 was filed before the
District Court at Ranga Reddy District which is seriously disputed by
the respondent/plaintiff.
crp_2989_2019
AVR, J
On a perusal of the order impugned, the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, in para 6 has clearly mentioned
that on online verification, the Court has noticed that no such
Appeal (SR) No.8681 of 2019 was filed before Principal District
Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
Even after recording such finding, no effort was made by the
revision petitioners to ascertain the status of the appeal, if any,
filed by them. During the arguments also when enquired by this
Court about appeal number, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners failed to give such appeal number. If really the revision
petitioners have filed any such appeal before the Principal District
Court at Ranga Reddy, they are at liberty to ventilate their
grievance in the appeal suit and to obtain stay of the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.88 of 2013 dated 05.03.2019. There is no
whisper on behalf of the revision petitioners either in the grounds of
revision or at the time of arguments that they have preferred
appeal and it is numbered and it is still pending.
In the above circumstances, I doubt the genuineness of the
SR number or the appeal number as mentioned either in the
grounds of this revision petition or in the impugned order to the
effect that aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court
in O.S.No.88 of 2013, the petitioners/defendants/J.Drs have
preferred an appeal and that either it is appeal No.8681 of 2019 on
the file of Principal District Court, Ranga Reddy District or Appeal
SR No.8681 of 2019.
In the order impugned, the learned Principal Junior Civil
Judge, having narrated the contentions of both sides discussed at
crp_2989_2019
AVR, J
para 6 to the effect that though learned counsel for the petitioners
did not mention that they have preferred the appeal against the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.88 of 2013 as on date of the
orders i.e., as of 25.11.2019, that Court has not received any stay
order from the District and upon online verification of case status it
was noticed that no such appeal with number AS(SR) No.8681 of
2019 is filed and pending before the Principal District Court, at
Ranga Reddy.
Even after specific finding recorded by the Court in the order
impugned, no efforts are made by the petitioners/judgment
debtors/either to furnish the correct status of their appeal or at
least the appeal SR number.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any material
irregularity in the order impugned to be rectified by this Court
under Section 115 of CPC. However, the petitioners/judgment
debtors/defendants are at liberty to ventilate their grievance and to
move appropriate application to stay the proceedings before the
appellate Court if they have already filed appeal or if they choose to
file the same.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No
costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
________________________
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J
02nd November, 2021
ksm
crp_2989_2019
AVR, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.2989 of 2019
02nd November, 2021
ksm
