POKALA POLAIAH Vs. POKALA AVULAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The order of the learned subordinate Judge, Markapur in I.A.No.957 of 1997 in A.S.No.11 of 1997 dated 29-8-1997 is challenged. Petitioner is the respondent in the appeal whereas respondents are the appellants. Two suits were filed by each of the petitioner and respondents. The suit of the respondents in OS No.65 of 1991 was dismissed whereas the suit of the petitioner in OS No.76 of 1991 was decreed by the common judgment of the learned District Munsif, Podili dated 2-4-1997 for permanent injunction in regard to the suit schedule property. In Appeal, stay of the operation of the judgment and decree was sought for. The impugned order is short and small and reads as follows: "Counter not filed and requests for further time, rejected. It is represented that item No.7 in AS No.9/97 on the file of the Court is the same item as item No. 1 in this appeal. The Court granted stay in IA No.415/97 in AS 9/97 for all the items in the schedule in that appeal on 28-4-97 and this appeal also in respect of item No. 1 which is same as item No.7 in AS 9/97. So since stay is already granted in respect of item No.7 in AS 9/97 in IA 415/97 I deem it fit to grant stay in respect of item No. 1 of schedule property alone: The petitioner further states that he is not concerned with items 2 and 3 of schedule property herein. Petition is allowed accordingly.''

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is opposed to law and the factual circumstances in the case, as according to him, while granting the order of permanent injunction by decreeing the suit of the petitioner, the Court had accepted his possession of the suit property and the interference by the other side and by staying the operation of the judgment and decree of the trial Court that finding was incidentally varied without giving reasons or basis to pass the order of stay. Mr. Subba Reddy, learned advocate for the respondents has contended that there is no reasons to interfere with, the order being a discretionary one.