THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.97 of 2009 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the deceased-petitioner for recovery of certain amount. It was pleaded that the respondent advanced a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- for establishment of a stone crushing unit and that in spite of demands, the deceased-petitioner did not pay the amount. I.A.No.327 of 2009 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking inventory of the suit schedule property and to seize the same for keeping it in safe custody. It was alleged that there is every likelihood of the plant and machinery being removed from the site and in such an event, it would be difficult for the respondent to recover any amount. The application was opposed by the deceased-petitioner. Through order, dated 27.02.2009, the trial Court ordered the I.A. Hence, this revision. After the revision was filed, the sole petitioner i.e., defendant in the suit died. His legal heirs are brought on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is no doubt true that the seizure of property belonging to defendant in a suit for recovery of money is an extra-ordinary step. At the most, attachment before judgment can be ordered. The effort of the respondent is only to ensure that the plant and machinery of the crushing unit are not removed during the pendency of the suit. After hearing the parties at length, this Court verified from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether they are in a position to run the unit after the death of the deceased-petitioner. It is stated that they are not in a position to run the unit. Whatever may have been the justification or otherwise for the trial Court in directing the Advocate Commissioner to take inventory and effect seizure of the unit, when the order was passed, such a course becomes imperative now. The reason is that the petitioners are not in a position to run the unit and unless it is properly preserved, it would be detrimental to the interest of both the parties. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. In view of the fact that the sole breadwinner of the petitioners’ family died, it is better that the suit is disposed of at the earliest. Learned counsel for petitioners undertakes to file vakalat in the trial Court on behalf of his clients. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the parties shall cooperate for the same. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2009 Date: 09.07.2010 JSU