MADDURI PADMAVATHI Vs. CHINTALA ABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge,dated July 5, 1993 in lANo. 465 of 1993 in O.S.No.40 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, granting stay of execution of the decree, obtained by her, in E.P.No.3/91 in O.S.No. 27/87 on the file of the Sub-Court, Peddapuram.

(2.) Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the trial Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting stay of sale of plaint schedule property under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 94(c) having reached the conclusion that no order could be granted under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. He urges that in view of Section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 no injunction can be granted restraining a person from executing the decree. Sri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the decree obtained by the petitioner is a collusive decree and the execution of such a decree will cause injury to the respondent, as such the respondent was entitled to the injunction restraining the sale of the property in execution of the decree. However, the learned counsel fairly conceeds that the Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 94(c) are not two alternative heads under which injunction can be sought.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts.