( 1 ) THE Revision Petitioner is the 1st respondent-Decree-holder in E. A. No. 480/99 in E. A. No. 430/99 in E. P. No. 98/95 in O. S. No. 16/85 on the file of subordinate Judge, Tanuku.

( 2 ) THE Revision Petitioner filed a suit o. S. No. 16/95 on the-file of Subordinate judge, Tanuku for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 3-7-1984 against respondents 3 and 4 and the suit was decreed on 22-3-1994 and the said decree became final and the Revision petitioner filed E. A. No. 430/99 in e. P. No. 98/95 for taking possession of the schedule property and at that juncture the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed an application E. A. No. 480/99 for stay of execution of the decree in O. S. No. 16/85 under order 21 Rule 26 r/w. Section 151 c. P. C. and the Revision Petitioner had opposed the said application stating that they being strangers to the litigation, such parties have no locus standi to maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 26 C. P. C. and even in the facts and circumstances of the case Section 151 C. P. C. cannot be invoked. The Court below after discussing the matter at paragraph-5 of the impugned order had allowed the said application granting stay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document