HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.482 of 2009 J U D G M E N T: The first respondent filed O.S.No.931 of 2006 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the second respondent and the appellant for the relief of cancellation of document dated 31.07.2006 executed by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. It has also filed I.A.No.2268 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the appellant and the second respondent from dispossessing the first respondent and to restrain them from alienating the suit schedule property. After receipt of notice in the said suit and I.A., the appellant and the second respondent entered appearance and filed counters in the I.A.. The matter was being adjourned from time to time and it stood posted to 15.06.2009. The first respondent filed I.A.No.509 of 2009 with a prayer to advance the I.A. The trial court advanced the same to 15.04.2009. Thereafter it was posted to 17.04.2009. On that day, the appellant was set ex parte and the trial Court allowed the I.A. through its order dated 20.04.2009. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard Sri Milind G.Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. Along with the suit, the first respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for two fold relief of temporary injunction. After the I.A. was numbered, it was listed for the first time for hearing on 04.07.2007. The appellant and the second respondent entered appearance and filed counters. Learned Presiding Officer of the Court was transferred. Therefore, it was adjourned on several dates and it stood posted to 15.06.2009. The first respondent moved an application in I.A.No.509 of 2009 before the In-charge Court with a prayer to advance the I.A.. Acceding to the request of the first respondent, the In-charge Court advanced the I.A., and posted to 17.04.2009. The appellant was set ex parte on that day and it was posted for orders on 20.04.2009. It is asserted that on 17.04.2009 itself the appellant filed I.A. (S.R)No.1900 of 2009 to set aside the order setting him ex parte and later on the I.A. came to be numbered as 734 of 2009. The In-charge Court, which heard the matter, ought to have proceeded cautiously in dealing with a matter, which was advanced by two months. It is not as if that the appellant took several adjournments or dodged the matter on several occasions either before the I.A. was advanced or thereafter. On none of the occasions, the adjournment was attributed to the appellant. On 15.04.2009 itself the trial Court advanced the date of I.A. to that date and adjourned by two days. The occasional absence of the appellant when the case was called, appears to have become handy. Curiously, the Court not only set him ex parte, but also reserved the matter for orders. The curious part in the matter is that without realizing that the appellant submitted an application on the same day under Order IX rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court has proceeded to allow the I.A. It has already been mentioned that the I.A. was pending almost for two years, before it came to be allowed, and no part of the delay can be attributed to the appellant. A court, which advanced the I.A., ought to have dealt with great care and caution. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The trial Court is directed to hear the parties and pass fresh orders on the I.A. within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 3rd August, 2009 sur Note : The Registry is directed to return the file in the I.A. along with the copy of this order to the trial Court through a special messenger.