This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition seeking interference with an order dismissing an application for stay of execution. The court held that the revision petitioner failed to deposit required rent amounts as stipulated, justifying the lower court's dismissal of the stay application.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3153 OF 2013
Dated: 18.07.2013
| Between: | |
|---|---|
| Ms. K.Pooja | .. Petitioner |
| And | |
| G.V.Ratnam |
.. Respondent |
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3153 OF 2013
ORDER:
The revision petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.46 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the I-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the III-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.218 of 2010.
Pending the appeal, the appellant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1731 of 2012 seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.218 of 2010. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 4.7.2013 and aggrieved by the same the present Revision Petition is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision.
A perusal of the material available on record shows that the decree in O.S.No.218 of 2010 included a money decree towards arrears of rents. Therefore, the Court below by order dated 19.12.2012 had initially granted interim stay subject to depositing half of the arrears of rent on or before 4.1.2013 and further to continue to deposit the admitted current rent of Rs.11,000/- every month on or before 5th of succeeding month. A default clause was also added making it clear that in the event of the appellant committing default in depositing the amounts as stipulated thereunder, the petition for stay shall stand dismissed.
Admittedly the petitioner/appellant failed to deposit the monthly
rents payable in terms of the order dated 19.12.2012 nor she sought extension of time or modification of the said order. Therefore, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the application for stay.
Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
However, in case the amounts due as of today are deposited to the credit of the execution petition stated to have been filed by the respondent herein, it is open to the executing Court to take into consideration the said fact while disposing of the execution petition.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
____________ G.ROHINI, J
Date: 18.07.2013 Ivd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing an application for stay of execution due to non-deposit of arrears.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the stay application in light of the appellant's default.
Ms. K. Pooja
G. V. Ratnam
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
