IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.635 OF 2008 Between: Podisetti Nagender and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Maddula Gopal Reddy and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.635 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 07.09.2007, in O.S.No.1118 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Mancherial, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed for permanent injunction was dismissed as not pressed. 2. The impugned order reads as follows "DW-1 is present. At this stage the counsel for the plaintiff not pressed the suit and endorsed in that effect on the plaint. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without there being any application, the trial Court simply accepted the representation of the learned counsel and dismissed the suit as not pressed and the same is not in accordance with law, under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”); that contrary to the dismissal of the suit the parties requested the counsel to give no objection for engaging another advocate, but without the consent of the petitioners the counsel made an endorsement on the plaint ‘not pressing the suit’ and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the revision is not maintainable in view of the fact that Section 96 sub-Section (2) contemplates filing of an appeal and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. It seems that the learned counsel for the petitioners herein made an endorsement on the plaint, after the closure of the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs, as not pressing the suit. Accepting the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit as not pressed. The contention that the appeal lies cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is no adjudication between the parties, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal within the meaning of ‘appeal’ as defined in C.P.C. Therefore the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents is untenable. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 5, 2010 MD