THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.977 of 2011 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of dismissal, dated 29.12.2010, passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.2543 of 2010 in A.S.No.250 of 2009 filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to re-admit/restore the appeal to file by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 09.11.2010, passed in the said appeal. 2. The petitioner herein filed A.S.No.250 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.1921 of 2004 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. She states that the appeal was transferred from the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the file of XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and thereafter the said appeal was dismissed in the absence of the petitioner. Seeking to restore the said appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2543 of 2010. Through order dated 29.12.2010, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said I.A. Hence, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4 . This Court on 25.03.2011 while issuing notice before admission granted interim injunction in CRPMP No.1386 of 2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as no notice was served on him from the transferee Court, the petitioner has not contested the matter. He contended that as the learned Judge dismissed the appeal, by passing an elaborate judgment, without hearing the petitioner, the same is not permissible. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that generally, when the suits were transferred from one Court to another, it is being exhibited in the notice board and as such, issuance of notice by the transferee Court does not arise. He further contended that during the pendency of the suit as well as the appeal, no injunction was subsisting. He also contended that since several injunction petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Courts, the interim order of injunction by this Court is liable to be vacated. 7. As seen from the record, originally A.S.No.250 of 2009 was filed in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and later, it was transferred to the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner stated that when the connected appeal came up for hearing in the original Court, on enquiry, she came to know about the transfer and dismissal of present appeal by the transferee Court. Since the appeal was dismissed without hearing the petitioner, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. As she intends to contest the matter on merits, for the act of the Advocates about not noticing the transfer of appeal, the petitioner should not suffer and in order to give one more opportunity to her, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned, and consequently, I.A.No.2543 of 2010 is allowed. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of A.S.No.250 of 2009 after hearing both sides, on merits, in accordance with law. Pending disposal of the appeal, the injunction granted by this Court shall continue. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.07.2011 sj