MUDDANA SUBBA REDDY Vs. MUDDANA KULLAYI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel who has lodged caveat.

(2.) The matter is coming up for admission. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would contend that the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddutur had erred in granting the stay of operation of the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 61 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, under Order 41, Rule 5 of C.P.C. The learned counsel would contend that the revision petitioner was successful in getting a decree for perpetual injunction and also mandatory injunction and without proper appreciation of the facts of the case, the learned Judge improperly exercised the discretion and granted stay and hence, the said order to be interfered with.

(3.) Per contra, Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel who lodged the caveat, opposed the same on the ground that at paras 5 and 6, reasons had been recorded by the learned Judge after framing the point for consideration at para 4 and this being a discretionary order, unless any illegality is pointed out, the same need not be disturbed while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.