APPANI RAMCHANDRAM Vs. CHERUKU VIJAYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned Counsel.

(2.) Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that though the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where stay to be granted as prayed for under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned Counsel also would submit that in view of the fact that Writ Petition No.26378 of 1999 is pending on the file of this Court, serious prejudice would be caused if further proceedings are proceeded within O.S. No.19 of 1999.

(3.) Per contra, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel would maintain that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondent for perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property on the strength of the impounded un-registered sale deed. The learned Counsel also had narrated several of the details and would comment that several applications were moved and such orders were carried by way of civil revision petitions and the view of the petitioners is only to delay the matter. The learned Counsel also would submit that the suit is a suit for injunction simplicitor and the writ petition filed by the respondent is challenging the proceedings of Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in reviewing the orders under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In the light of the same, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.