Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 94 (AP)

Bokka Nagendra v. Kotta Reddiyya

2009-02-20

P.S.NARAYANA

body2009
Judgment :- Heard Sri Babji, the learned counsel representing Sri Sitaram Chaparla, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners. 2. It is stated that the respondents had been served and none represents them. 3. This Court, while ordering notice before admission, on 26.12.2008, granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was further extended for a further limited period. 4. Sri Babji, the learned counsel representing Sri Sitaram Chaparla, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners, had taken this Court through the impugned order under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, the appellate Court had not exercised the discretion properly while deciding the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience). The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the order under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that when the decree itself is for specific performance of the agreement of sale, normally, the stay of further proceedings should have been granted in ordinary course, instead of dismissing the application on the ground that even if the sale deed is to be registered in favour of the plaintiffs, the further proceedings in relation to delivery would take some time and this approach adopted by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur being not in accordance with law, the said order is liable to be set aside. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, dated 03.12.2008 made in I.A.No.1774 of 2008 in A.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District. It is stated that the respondents filed the suit O.S.No.416 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur for the relief of specific performance of contract, dated 10.08.1994, and the said suit was decreed on 17.01.2005. It is also stated that aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners/appellants/defendants carried the matter by way of appeal questioning the validity of the said decree and judgment. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents/plaintiffs filed E.P.No.293 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur for getting registered the sale deed, by executing the decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents/plaintiffs filed E.P.No.293 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur for getting registered the sale deed, by executing the decree. It is also stated that the appellants are ready and willing to deposit the costs of Rs.8,614/- if directed by the Court and further undertook to pay the costs of the future proceedings as well. It is also stated that if stay is not granted, respondents/plaintiffs may take possession of the plaint schedule property through process of Court by dispossessing the revision petitioners/appellants/defendants from the plaint schedule property. The said application was resisted on the ground that the suit was decreed on merits, after serious contest between the parties and further, it is stated that the appellants are interested in prolonging the proceedings and instead of granting stay, the appeal itself can be disposed of. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, came to the conclusion that even if the sale deed is to be registered in pursuance of the E.P. proceedings, the plaintiffs may have to take further steps for taking delivery of the property and in the meanwhile, the appeal can be heard and disposed of and on that ground the application was dismissed. 6. It is pertinent to note here that the suit is for the relief of specific performance of contract of agreement of sale and in the light of the facts and circumstances, on appreciation of relevant facts, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur could have exercised the discretion of granting stay on condition of depositing the lower court decree costs within a specified time. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur also could have taken the appeal for final hearing and could have disposed of the appeal as well. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the further proceedings are hereby stayed as prayed for in I.A. No.1774 of 2008 in A.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, on condition of the petitioners/appellants/defendants depositing the suit costs within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. In default, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. It is also made clear that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, to expedite the hearing of the appeal and hence, a request is made by this Court to see that the said appeal is disposed of at the earliest point of time. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.