M RAM REDDY Vs. L RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 30.1.2012 in EA No. 1 of 2012 in EPSR No. 1 of 2012 in RC No. 69 of 2006 on the file of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The petitioner is judgment debtor in RC No. 69 of 2006. The order passed for his eviction was confirmed by all Fora including the Supreme Court before which the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to vacate and handover premises to the decree holders within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OS No. 3205 of 2011 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration that the order dated 31.12.2009 in RC No. 69 of 2006 is unenforceable and procured by fraud. While the said suit is pending, the respondents have filed Execution Petition for eviction of the petitioner. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner filed EA No. 1 of 2012 purportedly under Order XXI Rule 29 read with Section 159 CPC for stay of execution of the order dated 31.12.2009. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakanth representing Sri M.S.N. Prosody learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) I have carefully considered the reasons given by the lower Court with which I am in full agreement on merits. But one aspect which everyone including the lower Court has ignored is the very non-maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC. The said provision reads as under: