THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1748 OF 2011 Dated: 28.06.2011 Between: Raja Ramesh Gandla … Petitioner AND M/s. Swetha Constructions … Respondent This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1748 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.2011 in I.A.No.113 of 2011 in O.S.NO.10 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District. The defendant in the suit is the Revision petitioner. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed I.A.No.113 of 2011 under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for attachment of the schedule mentioned property before judgment. By order dated 18.02.2011 the said petition was ordered and warrant of attachment was directed to be issued. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that as the members of the Bar were abstaining from Courts on 18.2.2011, the counsel for the defendant/ revision petitioner could not appear when the matter was called, vehemently contended that the Court below committed an error in ordering attachment of the schedule property without giving opportunity of hearing to the defendant. Apparently, the impugned order of attachment was passed without hearing the defendant. The order itself shows that on that day the defendant–respondent/revision petitioner was called absent. It was also recorded in the order that no vakalat was filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant and there was no counter on his behalf. However it is the specific case of the Revision petitioner/defendant that a detailed counter was filed in the Section on 18.2.2011 itself vide SR.No.855/2011. Since the said counter was not taken into consideration, it is stated that the defendant had again filed on the same day a petition vide SR.No.859/2011 to set aside the order of attachment made under the impugned order. It is also pleaded that in view of the agitation going on in the bar, the counsel for the defendant/revision petitioner could not be present in the call- work for filing the vakalat and counter and the same had resulted in the impugned order of attachment. Having regard to the admitted fact that the order under Revision was not made on merits and moreover on the very same day the petitioner/defendant filed his counter as well as an application for setting aside the order of attachment vide SR.No.855/2011 and SR.No.859/2011, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits at this stage. Instead I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to hear IA (SR) No.859 of 2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider IA (SR) No.859 of 2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 28.6.2011 Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) IVD