CRP/4443/2014 of B Satish Chandra Babu Vs Karri Rama Subba Laksmi on 31 December 2015

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learnedcounsel for the respondent.

2. These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed againstthe orders dated 10.07.2014 in I.A.No.219 of 2014 in A.S.No.67 of2014 and I.A.No.221 of 2014 in A.S.No.68 of 2014 on then file ofthe learned XIII Additional District Judge at Gajuwaka,Visakhapatnam (for short “the lower appellate court).

3. The petitioner in these two civil revision petitions is theappellant in the above referred appeals. The respondent obtainedmoney decree as well as the eviction decree against thepetitioner. O.S.No.63 of 2003 was filed for the recovery of anamount of Rs.1,20,000/-, whereas O.S.No.193 of 2003 was filedfor eviction of the petitioner herein. Both the suits were decreed. Challenging the judgment and decrees in the above suits, thepetitioner preferred the above appeals and sought stay ofexecution of decrees. In the affidavit filed in support of the staypetition, the petitioner stated as follows:

“…I have got fare chances to succeed in theabove appeal. The respondent/plaintiff has no right toevict me and that has there is no jural relationshipbetween me and the respondent/plaintiff. Moreover therespondent plaintiff failed to prove her title and furthershe has not pressed the declaration relief too. So alsothe question of rent absolutely does not arise in thismatter.

I further submit that since 12 days I reliablylearnt that the respondent/plaintiff has been makingfrantic efforts to execute the decree and dispossess mefrom the schedule property. There is a clear lacuna I

the very schedule property itself. If the respondent issuccessful in doing so, I will be put to serious andirreparable loss. I am not having any other dwellinghouse for shelter and equally any property. I have tomaintain a big family in the suit property I have investedhuge amounts in the schedule property and unless theHonourable court pleased to grant stay of operation ofdecree and judgment in O.SNo.193/2003 on the file ofthe Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka by way of suspensionlest I will be put to serious and irreparable loss anddamage…”

4. In the above affidavit filed, since the petitioner did notdisclose the furnishing of security or deposit of amount whileseeking stay, the lower appellate court dismissed the applicationfor stay by order dated 10.07.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lowercourt should have applied its mind and imposed some terms ascondition for grant of stay and it cannot dismiss the application onthe sole ground that the petitioner did not deposit the amount orfurnish the security.

6. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated10.07.2014 are set aside and the matter is remanded to thelearned XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka for passingappropriate orders in accordance with Order 41 Rule 5 of CPCwithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

7. Accordingly, these two Civil Revision Petitions areallowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order asto costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending inthese revision petitions, shall stand closed.

_______________________________

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

Date: 31.12.2015

Note: The copy of the order may be dispatched within one week.

B/o

gvl