MARISHEETY PEEDA GANGARAM Vs. CHUKKA HANUMANDLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions raise interesting question of law. The point that would arise for consideration is whether an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings passed by the appellate Court in appeal or by the revisional Court in revision, operates as stay in considering the interlocutory application filed in the trial Court or bars only from proceeding with the trial of the suit.

(2.) The petitioners in these revision petitions are plaintiffs in suit OS No.108 of 2014 (old OS No.49 of 2003). The petitioners filed IA Nos.56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2017, respectively, in suit OS No.108 of 2014, under Order 13, Rule 9, r/w. section 151 CPC seeking return of original registered sale deeds filed by them to avail bank loans. The trial Court by the impugned orders, dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that this Court in CRP No.359 of 2008, dated 08-02-2008 allowed IA No.45 of 2006 filed by the petitioners herein, in the instant suit OS No.49 of 2003, granted stay of all further proceedings of the suit, till disposal of the appeal being AS No.62 of 2004. Hence these civil revision petitions.

(3.) Sri E.V.V.S Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the order of stay of suit passed in an application filed under section 10 of CPC operates only in respect of further trial of the suit and there is no bar to consider the interlocutory applications to meet the ends of justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision rendered by Kerala High Court in V.R. Balakrishnan Nadar v. R.Velayudhan Nadar AIR 1980 KERALA 161. Though notice is served, none appeared for the respondents.