ORDER :

1. The petitioners in these seven cases are the Judgment debtors. The respondent is the decree-holder in all the cases. The revisions arise out of orders refusing to grant stay passed under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed suits against the petitioners in the year 1966 or so and that those suits for eviction were decreed and the said decrees were confirmed in the first appeals as well as in the second appeals.

3. In some matters the parties approached the Supreme Court and the Special leave was refused. Subsequently, the petitioners filed separate suits on the file of 3rd Asst. Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad for stay of execution proceedings in the above mentioned suits which are pending before the 4th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 3rd Asst. Judge appears to have granted an order directing-maintenance of status quo. That order is said to be still in force.

4. As things stood thus the respondent filed a suit against the Government before the 9th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent is also said to have filed another suit against the Municipality, Subsequently it is now not in dispute that the C