IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4146 OF 2009 Between: M/s H.D.F.C., Bank Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Having its branch office at Paradise Branch, Ushakiran Complex, Paradise Circle, S.P., Road, Secunderabad -3 …Petitioner A n d M.Krishna Reddy and 4 others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4146 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 24-08-2009 in I.A.No.141 of 2009 in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.1107 of 2002, on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, wherein the order passed is as follows:- “Counter already filed. For hearing call on 03.09.2009”. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. It is stated that respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for recovery of certain amount due and an ex parte decree was passed against R-4 and R-5 (D-1 and D-2) and also petitioner/D-3. In execution of the decree, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.24 of 2009. An order of attachment was issued against the petitioner-bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed C.R.P.No.3075 of 2009. This Court, by order dated 10-07-2009, disposed of the said revision petition as the petitioner offered to deposit the decretal amount and gave liberty to the petitioner-bank to move the Court below by filing appropriate application. It is stated that the petitioner has deposited the decretal amount into Court in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in CRP.No.3075 of 2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A.No.142 of 2009 for setting aside the ex parte decree and also I.A.No.141 of 2009 for condoning the delay. The said applications are still pending. The plaintiffs filed a counter in I.A.No.141 of 2009. The trial Court, by the impugned docket order dated 24-08- 2009, merely noted the said fact and posted the matter for hearing on 03-09-2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court is proceeding with the EP even before disposing of the application in I.A.No.141 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would submit that the petitioner-bank has no liability for the suit amount and the plaintiffs played fraud, but, however, the petitioner deposited the amount into the Court in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in CRP. It is open to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the trial Court or the execution Court if he apprehends that the amount deposited by him will be withdrawn by the plaintiff even before disposal of I.A.No.141 of 2009. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.141 of 2009 on its merits at an early date within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The merits of the said contention would be decided by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th March, 2011 Lrkm.