THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4883 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-firm, which is the plaintiff in O.S.No.244 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 02.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, returning the prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal. Petitioner-firm is the plaintiff in O.S.No.244 of 2003 filed for recovery of money. Pending disposal of the said suit, it filed I.A.No.298 of 2007 under Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 CPC read with Section 94 CPC seeking to order attachment of the amount lying to the credit of Crl.M.P.No.286 of 2006 in Crime No.29 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. In the said I.A., the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal, by recording absence of the respondent and observing that no counter-affidavit is filed, passed order, dated 15.02.2008 prohibiting the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, from paying an amount of Rs.8,90,000/-, subject to further orders. The said order was received by the Court of II Additional District Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, on 26.02.2008. However, the same was returned by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, vide docket order, dated 02.05.2009, which is to the effect that as per Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Rules, 1999, when an ad interim order attaching the money or other property of a financial establishment is made by the Government under Section 3 of the Act, such money or property referred to in the order shall not be passed on to any other person by any mode or whatsoever and if any such transfer is made, it shall be null and void. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is not competent to return the prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008, by way of docket order, dated 02.05.2009. It is stated that though the prohibitory order was served on 26.02.2008, the same was returned after one year. On the last occasion, the matter was heard and was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to ascertain about the final order passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007 in O.S.No.244 of 2003. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel has produced before this Court a copy of the order, dated 27.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007. The same is placed on record and is to the following effect: “Prohibitory order served. This petition is closed.” As much as the prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007 was subject to further orders, the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal, ought to have decided the said application on merits. Merely because the prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008 served, I.A.No.298 of 2007 ought not to have been closed without deciding it on merits. Although the petitioner has questioned the returning of prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008 by way of docket order, dated 02.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, as much as the prohibitory order, dated 15.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007 was subject to further orders and as the said I.A. was not disposed of on merits, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 27.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2007 with a direction to the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal to dispose of I.A.No.298 of 2007 afresh on merits upon hearing both sides. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is open to the parties to raise all available pleas in support of I.A.No.298 of 2007, which is to be disposed of afresh on merits pursuant to this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th JUNE, 2010. kvni