IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1738 OF 2006 BETWEEN Bank of India, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND Rohit Pritwani. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. S. SURYA PRAKASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2004 is aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction dated 22.12.2005 granted in favour of the respondent herein by the lower appellate Court in CMA.No.47 of 2004. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.37 of 2004 and also filed I.A.No.168 of 2004 for temporary injunction. Though initially injunction was granted by the trial Court, the same was vacated by the trial Court by order dated 03.11.2004. However, the respondent filed an appeal and under the impugned order injunction was again granted in his favour. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is preferred and by order dated 13.04.2006 this Court while admitting the CRP granted interim suspension, which is continuing to operate even today. 3. Nobody appears for the respondent despite several attempts of serving and as per the report of the Registry, the notice to the sole respondent sent by RPAD on 19.05.2006 shows that the postal acknowledgment is received back in May 2006 but the signature of the recipient is not found thereon. 4. In any case, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already filed O.A.No.80 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad against M/s. Ritesh Engineering Private Limited and its Directors, as they had obtained finance from the petitioner-bank by mortgaging the schedule properties appended to the said OA. The respondent herein, who is plaintiff in the Court below is said to be a purchaser of A schedule property in the said OA from the borrowers and according to the petitioner, the said transaction is in violation of the mortgage executed by the vendors of the respondent in favour of the petitioner-bank. 5. Learned counsel also placed before this Court an amended copy of the OA to show that the respondent as well as two others are impleaded in the said OA as respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 and that the respondent herein has already filed a written statement in the said OA and the OA is being contested. 6. In any case, the suit being of the year 2004 it might have been disposed of by now but the learned counsel is unable to confirm the same. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak to hear and decide O.S.No.37 of 2004, if not already disposed of, in accordance with law preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and meanwhile, the interim suspension granted by this Court by order dated 13.04.2006 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit. Both parties shall be at liberty to raise all such legal or factual grounds as are available to them in the said suit. The civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 15, 2010 DSK