ORDER :

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.

1. This revision is directed against the docket order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present revision, are as follows.

2A. Petitioner herein instituted the above mentioned suit against respondents, praying for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale and permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the said original suit on merits and awarded costs to the respondents-defendants. For realization of the said costs awarded by the Trial Court, 1st respondent/1st defendant filed EP No. 3 of 2005. As against dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, to the extent of awarding costs, the petitioner preferred appeal suit vide ASSR No. 6444 of 2005, before this Court, and alongwith the said appeal suit, he also filed an application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. This Court, vide order dated 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said appeal, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is pending consideration before this Court, and the stay granted, as mentioned supra, is still subsisting.

2B. While the things being so, a Memo came to be filed before the executing Court on behalf of 1st respondent, and the learned Judge passed the following order.

"This memo is closed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the learned Counsel for the respondent/JDR and the JDR is not present, by accepting the memo. The JDR is called absent, counter is not filed. The stay stood vacated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Law v. C.B.I., Crl. A. No. 1375, 1376/13, dated 23.3.2018, since the stay in this case was passed on 16.6.2005 in ASMP No. 1097/05 by the High Court. Hence right to file counter is for fated. To secure the presence of JDR to proceed with means enquiry the learned Counsel for DHR seeks time to take steps. Call on 1.2.2019."

Subsequently, the learned Judge passed the following docket order on 1.2.2019.

"Learned Counsel for petitioner/DHR filed petition to issue arrest warrant under Section (sic Order) 21 Rule 37(2) CPC for condone mean enquiry. Hence issue Arrest Warrant to conduct mean enquiry against the JDR who is not regarding to the notice on payment of process by DHR is 3 days returnable by 8.3.2019."

In the above back ground, challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the said docket order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed before this Court.

3. In the present revision, this Court, in IA No. 2 of 2019, passed the following order.

"This petition is filed to suspend the order dated 1.2.2019 passed in EP No. 3 of 2005 in OS No. 27 of 1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel points that initially an order was passed in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005 granting an interim stay pending further orders. On 23.1.2019 Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam held that the stay granted is automatically vacated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC). It is the contention of the learned Counsel that Asian Resurfacing's case (supra), applies only to the cases pending trial and that the six months dead line fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly talks of trial being stayed in the Trial Court. It is his contention that the order that is passed by this Court in ASMP No. 1097 of 2005 exercising its statutory power as an appellate Court and that the provisions of Order 41 etc., would not apply a