SEEMA Vs. JOHNY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .P. No.1024 of 2012 relates to the judgment and decree in R.S.A. No.991 of 2011 while R.P. No.393 of 2012 relates to R.S.A. No.1408 of 2011. Since the learned Senior Advocate appears for the petitioners in the review petitions as well, those review petitions are tagged on to the Original Petition No.3640 of 2012.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the appellants in R.S.A. Nos.991 and 1408 of 2011 which arose from the common judgment and decree in O.S. Nos.561 of 1999 and 185 of 2002. O.S. No.561 of 1999 is for declaration that sale deed Nos.1953 and 1954 of 1998 and 4355 of 1999 are null and void and for a decree for prohibitory injunction. O.S. No.185 of 2002 is filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioners from the first floor of the building and for recovery of Rs.1,16,000.00 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum for unauthorized use and occupation. The trail court allowed O.S. No.561 of 1999 and dismissed O.S. No.185 of 2002. That common judgment and decree were challenged in A.S. Nos.210, 212 and 217 of 2007. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed O.S. No.561 of 1999 while a decree was granted in O.S. No.185 of 2002. That common judgment and decree were challenged in R.S.A. Nos.991 and 1408 of 2011.

(3.) THE same petitioners have filed O.P(C) No.3640 of 2012 for stay of execution proceedings on the ground that the petitioners intend to challenge the common judgment and decree of this Court (sought to be reviewed) before the Apex Court. In the Original Petition it is stated that the executing court is proceeding with the execution of the decree pursuant to the judgment and decree of this Court and if petitioners are not given breathing time, they will be evicted and they have no other place to reside. In the circumstances it is prayed that the execution proceedings in O.S. No.185 of 2002 be stayed for appropriate period.