THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3333 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the letter bearing no.F/Court/179 dated 28.7.2010 addressed by the Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, SCCL Branch, Godavarikhani to the Chief General Manager Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagudam Area-I, Godavarikhani in forwarding the letter addressed by the court below to the Bank seeking particulars of the amount attached, the present revision is filed. 3. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the Government had acquired lands to an extent of Acs.52-27 gts. in Jallaram village, Kamanpur Mandal Karimnagar District and the petitioner – company is the beneficiary. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.5,500/- per acre along with attendant benefits. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants sought for reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in O.P.No.18/1989 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli. The civil court enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Company filed appeal before this court in A.S.No.1246/1992 and the claimants also filed cross-appeal in A.S.No.1606/1998 for further enhancement. This court dismissed the appeal filed by the company in A.S.No.1246/1992 and partly allowed the cross- appeal filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation to Rs.24,000/- per acre along with attendant benefits. The petitioner – company again filed a review petition in Rew.C.M.P.No.23259/2001 in A.S.No.1246/1992 to review the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998 in A.S.No.1246/1992. While the review petition is pending, the claimants filed E.P.No.46/2001 in O.P.No.18/1989 and got the Bank Accounts of the petitioner – company with the State Bank of Hyderabad, SCCL Branch, Godavarikhani, attached, by order dated 30.11.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner – company filed C.M.P.SR.No.81834/1999 in A.S.No.1246/1992 seeking stay of attachment and by order dated 6.12.2001 this court granted stay of the execution of E.P.No.46/2001 in O.P.No.18/1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. The petitioner company also filed another ASMP.No.288/2010 in A.S.No.1246/1992 seeking amendment of the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998 in A.S.No.1246/1992 and by order dated 31.3.2010 the same was dismissed. The review petition in Rew.CMP.No.23259/2001 is pending. While so, the advocate for the decree holders nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed a memo before the court below requesting the court to call for the amount of the petitioner – company, which was attached on 30.11.2001, to the court. The court below addressed a letter in Dis.No.1080 dated 13.7.2010 to the Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad, G.M. Office Branch, SCC Ltd., Godavarikhani to furnish the particulars of amount in the account, which were attached for taking further steps. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that this court by order dated 6.12.2001, in CMP.SR.NO.81834/1999 in A.S.No.1246/1992, has stayed the execution in E.P.No.46/2001 in O.P.No.18/1989 and when the stay is in operation and when the review petition is pending, the counsel for the respondents cannot file any memo and the court below, is not justified in addressing letter to the Branch Manager for furnishing particulars of the amount attached, for taking further steps. She contended that the claimants claimed huge and exorbitant amounts towards satisfaction of the decree, which are not correct and without affording opportunity to the petitioner – company to put forth its claim, the court below is not justified in seeking for particulars for taking further action. With these contentions, she sought to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants mainly contended that the impugned letter is not an order passed by the court below and hence the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. He further contended that the amendment petition filed by the petitioner – company in A.S.M.P.No.288/2010 in A.S.No.1246/1992 was dismissed on 31.3.2010 and the interim stay granted by the appellate court on 6.12.2001 automatically stands vacated. He alternatively contended that the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed and the appeal filed by the petitioner – company was dismissed and as the stay is granted only in the review petition filed by the petitioner – company and therefore, as there is no stay in the appeal filed by the claimants and the order of the High Court in the appeal in A.s.No.1606/1998 has become final, even if there is stay granted in the appeal filed by the petitioner – company, the same cannot be a bar for filing any memo in the E.P. proceedings. With these submissions, he sought to dismiss the revision. 6. In view of the above rival contentions, the primary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. is maintainable? 7. The relevant portion of the letter addressed by the Senior Civil Judge to the Branch Manager is extracted as under for better appreciation: “With reference to the subject cited above, I am to stat that in the E.P.No.46 of 2001 in O.P.No.18 of 1989 on the file of this Court, as per attachment warrant dated 30th day of November, 2001, the account No. C/A 50305, 50323 and C/I 10000 belongs to the Singareni Company, Godavarikhani for Rs.1,62,86,677-00 were attached and prohibited restrained from making any payments to the J.Drs. until further orders. On 12-07-2010 the counsel for the D.Hr. filed memo requesting the Court to call for the attached amount to this Court. Therefore, you are requested to furnish the particulars of amount in the particular accounts which were attached immediately, so that for taking further steps.” 8. The above letter discloses that based on the memo filed by the counsel for the claimants, the court below sought for particulars of the amount, which were already attached and hence it is needless to observe that there is no adjudication of any rights or obligations of the parties. It can be taken only as a correspondence and as there is no order finally deciding the suit or other proceedings as envisaged under Section 115 of C.P.C. this court cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 9. The Apex Court in the decision reported in BALDEVDAS v. FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS[1] held as under: 10. . . A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 10. In the present case, the revision is filed challenging the letter addressed by the court below to the Bank to furnish the particulars of the account, which was already attached. Therefore, in my considered view, as already noticed above, the impugned letter does not constitute an order finally deciding the rights of the parties in the proceeding and hence the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on that count alone. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 28—02—2011 [1] AIR 1970 SC 406