Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9985
APHC010038222019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 357/2019 Between:
Niranjan Rao (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND Borra Alivelu Mangamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 06.02.2019 in E.P. No.216 of 2011 in O.S. No.669 of 2002 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Machilipatnam.
2. The petitioner contends that while an interim order granted by this Court in S.A.M.P. No.700 of 2012 in S.A. No.334 of 2012 dated
04.04.2012 was in force, the learned trial Judge issued delivery warrant. The petitioner contends that the said decision seem to have been taken in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,1in Crl. Appeal No.1375, 1376/13, dated 23.03.2018.
3. However, in view of the larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein it is observed that:
“36. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench which decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing. We hold that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-to day basis within a time frame. We hold that such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We answer both the questions framed in paragraph 5 above in the negative.”
And further, this Court vide order dated 04.04.2012 in S.A.M.P.
No.700 of 2012 in S.A. No.334 of 2012 has granted interim suspension of all further proceedings pursuant to judgment and decree in O.S. No.-669 of 2012 as confirmed by the judgment and decree in A.S. No.90 of 2016.
6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order in S.A. No.334 of 2012, is in force.
7. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., referred supra, and the interim order of this Court in S.A. No.334 of 2012, the order of the learned trial Judge in E.P. No.216 of 2011, is required to be set aside.
8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.02.2019 in E.P. No.216 of 2011 in O.S. No.669 of 2002 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Machilipatnam. It is made clear that in view the order dated 04.04.2012 in S.A.M.P. No.700 of 2012 in S.A. No.334 of 2012, which is still in operation, the Executing Court cannot proceed further with the Execution Petition until further orders of this Court in S.A. No.334 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:26.04.2024 MVK THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.357 of 2019 Date:26.04.2024 MVK
