THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 9 3 4 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 23-6-2009 passed in I.A.No. 2075 of 2009 in I.A.No. 952 of 2009 in OS.No. 195 of 2009 by the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff, which was filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to extend the statusquo orders dated 23-03-2009 passed in I.A.No. 952 of 2009 till the disposal of the same, the present revision is filed. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition can be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner-company filed the above suit seeking declaration to declare the action of the respondent-bank in making excess payments to the ECL amounting to Rs.2,98,98,019=00 against the admitted liability of Rs.2,09,12,981=00 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the bank guarantee executed on 09-12-2006 and for consequential injunction restraining the respondent-bank from declaring the petitioner as NPA and for other reliefs. It is stated that in the above suit, I.A.No.952 of 2009 was filed seeking interim injunction against the respondent-bank restraining them from declaring its account as NPA. After hearing the matter, the learned Additional Chief Judge vide orders dated 23-3-2009 was pleased to issue urgent notice to the respondent-bank and ordered statusquo on 23-3-2009, which was being extended from time to time. It is stated that after receiving summons, the respondent-bank filed its counter and written statement and the matter was posted to 12-6-2009. On 12-6-2009 the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was present when the matter was called and requested the court below to extend interim orders granted on 23-3-2009. The court below also directed the counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent-bank not to take any action till the disposal of I.A.No.952 of 2009 and posted the matter on 25-8-2009 for hearing on I.A. It is also stated that the counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent bank had assured in open court that the bank will not take any action till the disposal of the said I.A. It is further stated that the respondent- bank is taking steps to declare our account as NPA despite having given assurance before the court below that they will not take any action till the disposal of the said I.A. and also informed that since the interim orders are not in existence they are taking steps to declare our account as NPA. If they are allowed to do so even prior to disposal of the said I.A. the petitioner-company will be put to irreparable loss and damage and as such, the petitioner-company filed I.A.No.2075 of 2009 seeking to extend the statusquo order granted by the court below on 23-3-2009 by advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No.952 of 2009 from 25-8- 2009 to 23-6-2009. 3. In view of the above averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the learned III-Additional Chief Judge dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there is no urgency. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 4. Sri L.Ravichander, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner seeks to contend that on earlier occasion the court below had passed order of statusquo and the same had been extended from time to time and when there was no reason for not extending the same on the application in question. Moreover when the counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent-bank after making assurance in the open court that the bank will not take any steps till the disposal of I.A.No.952 of 2009. But after making such assurance in open court, the respondent-bank was trying to take steps to declare the petitioner-company’s account as NPA, the present application was filed before the court below. The court below failed to see that on filing of counter in I.A.No. 952 of 2009, the petitioner- company has been ready to proceed with the arguments in the I.A. and at this stage not extending the order of statusquo would amounts to accepting contentions of the respondent-bank without enquiry into the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The record shows that notice was served on the respondent-bank on 23-6-2009 and proof of service is also filed with the Registry on 17-7-2009 under USR.No. 1024/09 and none represents for the respondent-bank and no counter is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has utterly failed to extend the statusquo by advancing the date of hearing of I.A.No. 952 of 2009 from 25-8-2009 to 23-6-2009 and the order passed by the court is illegal for the reason that there is no speaking order except stating that there is no urgency, petition is dismissed. 6. Under the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 23-6-2009 passed in I.A.No. 2075 of 2009 in O.S.No. 195 of 2009 and remand the matter to the Court of III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to pass appropriate speaking orders in I.A.No. 2075 of 2009 in OS.No. 195 of 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after issuing notice to both the parties. 7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 21-08-2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days B/o. IsL