HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.1894 of 2010 Dated 28-09-2010 Between: Sitaram Chaparla ……..Petitioner Vs. A.P.High Court Advocates’ Association, rep. by its Secretary, Ms.S.Nanda and another. ………Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.1894 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 16-04-2010 passed in I.A.No.836 of 2010 in O.P.No.393 of 2010 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in the High Court of A.P. and other subordinate courts for the last ten years. He filed O.P.No.393 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, challenging the resolution dated 27-11-2009 passed by the 1st respondent-Advocates’ Association, AP High Court, Hyderabad, removing him from the Association based on the representation dated 11-11-2009 made by Sri G.Dhananjaya, advocate, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has unruly behaved towards him in the Court Hall and within the Court premises. Along with the said O.P., he also filed an application in I.A.No.836 of 2010 to suspend the said resolution. The learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the said application holding that prima facie, the general body of the 1st respondent- Association is empowered to expel a member, if his behavior is objectionable and that the expulsion of petitioner from his membership cannot be stayed until he succeeds in the main O.P. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. Since the issue involved in this revision is with regard to the expulsion of membership of the petitioner from the 1st respondent-Advocates’ Association, and in view of the fact that the Court below, while dismissing the application, observed that the petitioner cannot seek stay at this stage, until he succeeds in the main O.P., without going into the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would suffice, if the main O.P. is disposed of as early as possible. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of the main O.P. itself, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to the disposal of the revision petition, the applications in C.R.P.M.P.Nos.2531 & 2532 of 2010 are also disposed of. ______________________ September 28, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. KVR