GOLIKOTA REDDY Vs. GOLI RAJA GOPALA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order by which the Executing Court has kept in abeyance an order passed by it earlier. By the earlier order in E.A. 98/2000 in E.P. 27/2000 in O.S. 220/91, the Court had directed ;

(2.) Before the controversy is resolved certain facts are needed to be gone into. In a suit for injunction a decree was passed by the trial Court in the following terms:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once an order was passed it could not have been kept in abeyance and an irreparable loss would be caused to the decree-holder. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent pleads that the revision itself is not maintainable in view of the mandate of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that, while the consideration of the application of petitioner is yet to be made by the Executing Court an order passed in ex parte in his favour was kept in abeyance. The impugned order is not an order which could be termed as 'case decided'. Secondly, it is contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order which it passed on 11/02/2000.