( 1 ) BANDI Nagaraju, the contesting respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, filed C. M. P. No. 26660/2003 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court on 26-9-2003 in C. M. P. No. 21779/2003. At the time of hearing of the vacate application, with the consent of both the counsel, the main revision itself is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.

( 2 ) SMT. Bhaskara Lakshmi, the learned counsel representing the Revision petitioners had submitted that though the provisions of order 21 Rule 29 C. P. C. in strict terms, may not be applicable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, definitely it is a fit case where the stay of execution of the decree should have been ordered in view of the fact that an application to set aside ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay already had been filed in O. S. No. 100/93 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Vizianagaram and the said applications are pending disposal. The learned Counsel also contended that if in the meanwhile further proceedings are taken in execution and sale is conducted, the revision petitioners/judgment debtors in e. P. NO. 64/2000 in O. S. No. 100/93 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, would be put to serious loss. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the impugned order and had commented that no reasons, much less, satisfactory reasons had been recorded while dismissing the application and on this ground alone it is a fit matter which may have to be remitted against to the learned Senior Civil Judge, vizianagaram to record reasons.

( 3 ) PER contra, Sri N. V. Ranganadham, the learned Senior Counsel had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application in E. A. No. 277/2003 and also the counter filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder in detail in the stay application. The learned Senior counsel also contended that in the light of the details which had been furnished in the counter it is clear that the Revision Petitioners herein/judgment debtors are just trying to evade the execution of the decree on some pretext or the other. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the suit itself is of the year 1993 and the debt to be recovered by executing the decree is of the year 1982 and this is an unfortunate case where the 1st respondent/decree holder is unable to realize the fruits of the decree and in such a matter since the application is not bona fide at all, an order of stay cannot be granted even by exercising powers under Section 151 c. P. C.

( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the impugned order.

( 5 ) AT para 5 of the impugned order, after recording the respective contentions of the parties, the learned Senior Civil judge, vizianagaram, had specified reasons as hereunder:"during arguments, the petitioners submit that Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. and section 5 Limitation Act filed recently which were not yet numbered. The learned Counsel for respondent submitted that unless the suit is pending, the execution need not be stayed under Section (Order) 21 rule 29 C. P. C. The only remedy available to the petitioners is there must be a suit pending between the Decree holder and Judgment debtors, and as such, at present no such suit or even his petitions under Order 9 Ruler 13 C. P. C. and u/section 5 of Limitation Act, the respondents submit that even if such petitions are filed the original record will not be available since it is destroyed in the court. Further, the respondents categorically submitted that the petitioners has got personal service at every stage of the suit and also in the execution application, and as such, the chances for the petitioners in succeeding either u/sec. 5 of Limitation Act petition or even in Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. are very less. Hence, there are no bona fides in the petitioners who approached this court at the fag end of the execution i. e. , just before sale. Hence, the petition is to be dismisse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document