THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5960 of 2009 ORDER The petitioner-plaintiff preferred this revision against the order of dismissal dated 17.09.2009, passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.2075 of 2009 in I.A.No.952 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2009 filed by it. 2. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.195 of 2009 for declaration and consequential injunction. Along with the suit, he filed I.A. No.952 of 2009 seeking to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from declaring the plaintiff’s account as ‘Non-performing Asset’ pending disposal of the main suit. Through order dated 23.03.2009, the trial Court, while ordering to issue urgent notice to respondent/defendant granted status quo till 06.04.2009 and the same was being extended from time to time. The petitioner states that despite the said orders, the respondent-Bank is trying to take action against the plaintiff to declare its account as NPA and therefore, it filed I.A.No.2075 of 2009 seeking to extend the said orders of status quo. Through order dated 23.06.2009, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there is no urgency. Through order dated 21.08.2009, this Court set aside the said order by allowing C.R.P.No.2934 of 2009 and remitting the matter to the trial Court with a direction to pass appropriate orders on merits. On remand, the trial Court restored I.A.No.2075 of 2009 and dismissed on 17.09.2009 on the ground that the petitioner did not proceed with the hearing of I.A.No.952 of 2009, which is still pending. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 3. On 17.12.2009, this Court while ordering notice before admission directed the parties to maintain status quo. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that though this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.2075 of 2009 on merits, the trial Court without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and extending the order of status quo, dismissed the I.A by the order impugned and thus, he prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that after dismissal of I.A.No.2075 of 2009 by the order impugned, the Bank classified the account of the petitioner as NPA on 30.06.2009 and thereafter proceeded further by issuing required notices under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), which were also questioned by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.21401 of 2009 and ultimately, it was unsuccessful and as such, the very suit itself is not maintainable. 6. The record shows that the interim order of status quo was passed on 23.03.2009 in I.A.No.952 of 2009 and the same was extended till 06.04.2009, on which date the respondent-Bank filed its counter. After remand, while allowing C.R.P.No.2934 of 2009, the trial Court restored I.A.No.2075 of 2009 and dismissed the same without assigning any reason except holding that the petitioner did not get ready in I.A.No.952 of 2009. Though this Court in the said CRP issued a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.2075 of 2009 on merits in accordance with law, the trial Court again without hearing the parties, dismissed the said I.A. by the order impugned. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter as regards the maintainability of the suit, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 17.09.2009, passed in I.A.No.2075 of 2009 in O.S.No.952 of 2009 and remit the matter to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.2075 of 2009, after hearing both the parties, on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, the status quo order passed by this Court shall continue. It is needless to observe that the Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the directions referred to above and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dated:05.08.2011 sj