THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3891 of 2007 Date: 13-8-2009 Between Valluri Ram Babu … Petitioner/Petitioner/ Respondent No.1/Defendant and Moturu Subba Raju … Respondent/Respondent/ Petitioner/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3891 of 2007 Oral Order: Heard Sri J.Ugranarasimha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Challenging the docket order, dated 01-8-2007, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in rejecting the application I.A.No.6577 of 2006 in I.A.No.2473 of 2006 in O.S.No.62 of 2006, filed under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking permission to file counter in the matter, the present revision is filed. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court. 4. It appears that the amount of Rs.7 lakhs which was in the hands of the garnishee of the defendant was attached under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 C.P.C., by the trial Court by order dated 11-9-2006, in I.A.No.2473 of 2006 and the plaintiff filed the present I.A.No.6577 of 2006 praying the Court to send for the said amount of Rs.7 lakhs which was so attached, and to direct the garnishee to deposit the said amount into the Court. In the said application, the defendant sought time to file counter and the same was rejected, hence the present revision. 5. But, from the impugned order, it appears that on the application I.A.No.6577 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff, notice was given to the defendant, no interest was evinced and no counter was filed by him and therefore, the said application I.A.No.6577 of 2006 was allowed on 09-02-2007. The trial Court, however, found that during the pendency of another application I.A.No.2782 of 2006 filed by the garnishee seeking to grant 6 months’ time for depositing Rs.7 lakhs into the Court, the present application was filed by the defendant seeking to permit him to file counter in the application I.A.No.6577 of 2007, which was already decided by the trial Court on 09-02-2007 after giving notice to him. 6. From the above facts, it appears that no useful purpose would be served to the defendant in case he is permitted to file counter in the application I.A.No.6577 of 2006, which was already decided by the trial Court on 09-02-2007, after giving notice to him. 7. However, learned Counsel for the defendant expresses an apprehension that the amount so attached and now being under the deposit before the trial Court would be permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiff and in which event, much hardship will be caused to the defendant. 8. I do not really find any substance in the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel. However, the defendant can take an objection as and when an application is made by the plaintiff seeking permission of the trial Court to withdraw the amount attached and the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in such an event. 9. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, subject to the observations made above, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th August, 2009. Ak