THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2972 of 2010 Dated:06.08.2010 Between: M/s.Deepika Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd. ….Petitioner And M.Yasu Padam, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2972 of 2010 ORDER: The first respondent raised a consumer dispute in C.D.No.86 of 2001 before the District Consumer Forum, West Godavari, seeking a direction to the five opposite parties (OPs) to refund Rs.4,10,000/- with interest to him. The petitioner herein is OP 5 therein. After adjudication, the District Forum passed orders on 11.02.2002. OP 5 was directed to refund the amount claimed with interest at 12% per annum. The first respondent then filed E.P.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. On 09.09.2003 the executing Court dismissed the E.P filed for attachment of the amount lying with garnishee, namely, Karnataka Bank. Aggrieved by the same, he filed C.M.A.No.3857 of 2003. This Court set aside the order of the executing Court passed on 09.09.2003, and restored the case with a direction to hear and dispose of the E.P on merits. At or about the same time, the petitioner herein (OP 5 in the C.D) filed a counter, inter alia, raising objection regarding maintainability of E.P. The Court below returned the said application observing that when the E.P itself is coming up for enquiry wherein the petitioner can raise all objections, such a plea cannot be entertained as a preliminary issue. This is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and after giving due consideration to the submissions, is convinced that the trial Court adopted the correct approach. When the E.P itself was directed to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, and the same is coming up for enquiry, the petitioner can raise all objections, and in view of the order of the Division Bench, it is not proper for the trial Court to reject the E.P in limine. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.08.2010 vs