THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.2338 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 30.03.2010 passed in I.A. No. 04 of 2010 in O.S. No. 160 of 2010 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC & ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner herein filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 38,31,500/- from the respondent-defendant, on the foot of a promissory note, with interest as prayed for in the plaint. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 04 of 2010, seeking attachment of agriculture lands belonging to the respondent, before judgment, and, in the said application, the Court below issued warrant in Form No. 5, on 15.03.2010, directing the respondent-defendant to furnish sufficient security for the suit amount and costs within three days of service of notice and also issued directions for attachment of schedule property, if the defendant fails to furnish security within the time prescribed, and posted the matter to 06.04.2010. Thereupon, the respondent- defendant filed I.A. No. 33 of 2010 seeking to advance the date of hearing of I.A. No. 04 of 2010 to 26.03.2010 from 06.04.2010 and also filed I.A. No. 34 of 2010, seeking to extend ten days’ time for furnishing pattadar passbooks and title deeds towards security for the suit amount. The Court below, having allowed I.A. No. 33 of 2010, advanced the hearing of I.A. No. 04 of 2010 to 30.03.2010 and passed the impugned docket order in I.A. No. 04 of 2010, whereby, while observing that the respondent-defendant wanted to furnish surety and sought time to produce original deeds, modified the order of attachment passed earlier to the one restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering schedule property during pendency of the suit or till further orders whichever is earlier, and posted the suit to 02.06.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition, contending that he was not put on notice before advancing the matter and passing the impugned docket order. He further contended that when the defendant himself wanted ten days’ time for furnishing security, the court below committed an error in passing the impugned order, which is beyond the scope of Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. On 10.08.2010, as it was represented by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant that the defendant has already furnished the security as required by the trial Court, this Court directed the Registry to call for a status report from trial Court in the matter. Pursuant thereto, as directed by the Registry, the trial Court submitted report dated 11.08.2010, but however, as the same does not contain required information, another report dated 17.08.2010 was called for from the trial Court, and a perusal of the same discloses that the documents filed by the defendant along with I.A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 2010, appear to have not been accepted as security by the then In-charge Officer, and he therefore directed the defendant to produce xerox copies of title deeds or a certificate from the bank, but no such documents are produced till date and no security is offered. It is further stated in the report that the matter is posted to 06.09.2010. Thus, as is evident from aforesaid report of the trial Court, dated 17.08.2010, the documents that were furnished by the defendant along with his applications were not accepted and he was directed to produce xerox copies of title deeds or a certificate from the bank, which he failed to furnish, and as such no security is offered by him till date. Coming to advancement of the matter and passing modified injunction orders under the impugned docket order, aggrieved by which the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court, admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned docket order. The trial Court, having passed a conditional attachment order, directing that the defendant shall furnish security for suit amount within three days of service of notice, failing which the schedule property would be attached, ought not to have modified the said order to that of an injunction order, by advancing the date of hearing, by the impugned docket order, without issuing notice to the petitioner-plaintiff and without hearing him. The impugned docket order, thus, being passed without putting the petitioner-plaintiff on notice and without affording him an opportunity to raise his objections, if any, cannot be sustained in law and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 20th August, 2010 IBL