THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2609 OF 2003 Dated: 29.10.2011 Between: The Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited ..... Petitioner AND I.Subrahmanyeswara Rao and 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2609 OF 2003 ORDER: Aggrieved against the order dated 11.02.2003 in E.P.No.121 of 1998 in O.S.No.478 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The petitioner herein is not a party in O.S.No.478 of 1997. As per the impugned order, the decree holder, Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed E.P.No.121 of 1998 to direct S.E.B.I. - 2nd J.Dr to effect transfer of registration as per the agreement of sale dated 30.10.1996 in his favour in respect of subject matter of transfer of rights under Certificate of Registration as Stock Broker and as member of the Hyderabad Stock Exchange Board, and after enquiry, the same was allowed. Being aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner stated that the impugned order is beyond the purview of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the order in E.P.No.121 of 1998 is contrary to the decree in O.S.No.478 of 1997, and sought for setting aside the impugned order. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 11.02.2003 is sustainable? As seen from the record in O.S.No.478 of 1997, on a suit filed by the 1st respondent herein against Mrs. Sri Godavari Financial Services Limited, represented by its Managing Director, K.Radhakrishna Murthy for specific performance of transfer of rights under the certificate of registration obtained by defendant as Stock Broker obtained from S.E.B.I bearing its No. INB 060917234, an ex parte decree was passed. Basing on the ex parte decree, E.P.No.121 of 1998 was filed for its execution. In the E.P.No.121 of 1998, the defendant in O.S.No.478 of 1997 is arrayed as 1st J.Dr, but, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Bombay is arrayed as 2nd J.Dr, is not a party in the original suit. As per records, no decree was passed against the 2nd J.Dr, who arrayed in E.P.No.121 of 1998. Moreover, the impugned order, in other words, can be stated as an ex parte order. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the 1st respondent was specifically informed by notice dated 02.07.1998 that the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority for the purpose of transferring the card. In spite of the said notice, the petitioner was impleaded in the E.P. and he was not given any prior notice in the trial Court. Therefore, the order obtained against the 3rd respondent is without any decree in O.S.No.478 of 1997. Therefore, the order dated 11.02.2003 passed in E.P.No.121 of 1998 in O.S.No.478 of 1997, is contrary to law, as the decree under which the present E.P. is filed, is not binding on the petitioner, as the petitioner is not a party to the suit. In any view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 29th October, 2011 Ivd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2609 OF 2003 29th October, 2011 Ivd