Manthana Ramu And Another vs Pittala Venkateshwarlu And 3 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3126 Tel

           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.

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

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1623 of 2021

Date:29.10.2021

Rds