THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2952 OF 2014 Dated:20-10-2014
Between:
C. Ramesh Reddy and three others ... PETITIONERS AND Dr. Doodala Bharathi and four others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2952 OF 2014 ORDER:
The 1st respondent filed O.S No.154 of 2004 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners (defendant Nos.5, 7 and 8) and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed, delivery of possession and recovery of mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 30-05- 2011. I.A No.590 of 2011 was filed before the trial Court for ascertainment of the mesne profits. The trial Court passed an order dated 21-02-2012 in relation to mesne profits.
The aggrieved parties filed CCCA No. 152 of 2011 against the decree and C.R.P No.1919 of 2012 against the order in I.A No. 590 of 2011. The appeal as well as the C.R.P were allowed.
The matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the 1st respondent. It is stated that though as many as four interlocutory applications were filed before the Supreme Court, orders were passed only in two of them.
The petitioners filed I.A No.982 of 2012 before the trial Court with a prayer to permit them to withdraw the mesne profits that were deposited in compliance with the order in I.A No.590 of 2011 and interim order passed by this Court in C.R.P No. 1919 of 2012. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 03-06-2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
It is not in dispute that the special leave petitions filed by the 1st respondent against the judgments in the CCCA and the CRP are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that an order of status quo was passed on 08-02-2013. The petitioner intends to give a restricted interpretation as to the scope of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
Once the entire matter is pending before the Supreme Court and an order of status quo is operating, the question of trail Court taking any steps to circumvent the order in any manner does not arise. Even if according to the petitioner, there is no impediment for withdrawal of the amount, the orders in this behalf must be obtained by the Supreme Court itself.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20-10-2014 ks