Civil Revision Petition challenging an order in execution proceedings. The Court dismissed the revision, holding the judgment debtor must pursue remedies via the pending appeal and stay application, while continuing an existing interim stay for four weeks.
Continuation of interim stay of execution proceedings for a period of four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4356 OF 2011
ORDER:
This is a revision filed by the petitioner-Judgment debtor No.2 challenging the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, in OEP.No.7 of 2009 in O.S.No.21 of 1999.
Respondents 1 to 11 filed the suit viz., O.S.No.21 of 1999 for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and the same was decreed on 9.7.2007 directing the defendants therein to remove the structures in the schedule property and to deliver the same to the plaintiffs. Challenging the decree, the revision petitioner herein filed A.S.No.90 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, and the same is pending. While so, respondents 1 to 11 filed O.E.P. for execution of the decree on the ground that the judgment debtors failed to deliver possession of the schedule property. The said O.E.P. was ordered on 23.9.2011. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
On 7.10.2011, this Court while ordering notice before admission granted interim stay of all further proceedings in OEP No.7 of 2009 in O.S.No.21 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.
Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-judgment debtor No.2 filed the appeal in the year 2007 and he did not take any steps to move an application along with the appeal for stay of execution of the decree. The Counter-affidavit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs goes
to show that in the year 2011 i.e., subsequent to the orders under this revision, the revision petitioner filed stay application and the same has not yet been numbered. Since the appeal and the stay application filed by the revision petitioner are pending before the lower appellate Court, the petitioner has to work out his remedies therein and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the subsistence of the interim stay granted by this Court till today, I feel it appropriate to continue the stay granted on 7.10.2011 for a period of four weeks. Meanwhile, the revision petitioner is at liberty to move the appellate Court for the appropriate relief. No order as to costs.
__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana
Dated:4.11.2011 Nn.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4356 OF 2011
4.11.2011
Nn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the order of execution proceedings where the judgment debtor failed to file for stay of execution alongside the pending appeal.
Petitioner-Judgment debtor No.2
Respondents 1 to 11
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
