THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4533 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 01.08.2007 in I.A.No.3717 of 2006 in O.S.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to pass judgment and decree in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum with proportionate costs. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,92,630/- based on the agreements dated 07.06.1999 and 09.10.2000 respectively. The petitioner is alleged to have made payment to a tune of Rs.7,30,000/-, as mentioned in para-4 of the written statements, which has been extracted in para-7 of the order of the Court below. Ultimately, the petition was allowed. Hence, the revision. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said paragraph has been unnecessarily picked out and sought to be put totally independent, necessarily, this paragraph need to be read along with the entire statement. Then only, it can be said that it is a demand or not. Otherwise, the Court below, without considering the same from such perspective, simply has taken up a stray sentence from para-4 and allowed the revision, which is not correct. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that even though the entire case of the petitioner in this revision squarely rests on such a stray approach, however, surprisingly, the order under revision is passed as long back as on 01.08.2007 and neither the copy of the written statement is filed along with the material papers in this revision nor there is any explanation for such non-filing. Further, one of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of revision is that the Court below dissected the written statement and came to an erroneous conclusion. In the said situation and in view of long lapse of time, I do not find any justification to interdict with the said proceedings nor do I find any error to warrant interference with the order of the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that since the trial has not yet commenced, it is always open for the petitioner to raise any objection in respect of his liability that would be fixed ultimately, includingafter calculating the entire amount. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 26th August 2010 RRB