THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.NO.3714 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 13- 07-2006 passed in I.A.No.1344 of 2001 in O.S.No.2 of 2001 by the learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Revision Petitioner herein is the defendant No.1. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed suit being O.S.No.2 of 2001 for recovery of money of Rs.20,02,317/- on the basis of memorandum of understanding dated 22.6.1998 said to have been executed by defendants and on the basis of equitable mortgage said to have been created by the first defendant. While admitting the execution of documents as stated above, fraud and misrepresentation alleged to have been perpetrated by the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Respondent No.3 is none other than the brother’s son of the 1st defendant. Defendant No.1 filed the present application under Order 37 R.3 (5) CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the above suit rejecting the plaint from being a summary suit. Questioning the same, the present revision is preferred on 3.8.2006 in the Registry. When the matter came up for admission on 11-08-2006, this Court passed the following order: “Notice before admission returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to take out notice to the respondents and file proof of service.” Along with the CRP, CRP MP No.5143 of 2006 is filed seeking to suspend the operation of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dated 13-07-2006 passed in I.A.No.1344 of 2001 in O.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit was decreed on 3.8.2006. Challenging the same, an appeal being CCCA No.305 of 2006 is filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judge cum Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. He further submits that as the main suit was itself decreed, the CRP does not survive. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that CRP still survives as the order impugned has to be decided on its own merits. A perusal of the record goes to show that the suit was decreed on 3.8.2006, on which date, CRP has been filed in the Registry. The petitioner has chosen to challenge the order dated 13.7.2006. The petitioner has never insisted for interim suspension of the order. Under those circumstances, the order impugned would bind the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that CRP still survives cannot be sustained as the suit was already decreed on 3.8.2006 against which an appeal also filed and in that appeal, the striking of defence is taken as one of the grounds. The petitioner utterly failed to pursue CRP MP or the CRP for over a period of four years and not chosen to seek suspension of the order. Therefore, no further orders need be passed as the suit was already decreed even prior to filing of the CRP. Hence, the CRP has become infructuous. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Rkk Dated: 20-04-2010