THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4898 of 2011 (Dated : 11-11-2011) Between: M.Hari Narayana …Petitioner A n d Smt. S.Vasantha W/o late Ramakrsihna Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4898 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.11.2011 passed in I.A.No.2586 of 2011 in O.S.No.187 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.187 of 2009. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property. The defendant remained ex parte and he moved I.A.No.2923 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.10.2010. The said application came to be allowed directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.10,40,000/-, by order dated 15.12.2010. The order dated 15.12.2010 passed in I.A.No.2923 of 2010 reads as hereunder:- “ Heard both sides. This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant Under Or.9, Rule-7 of C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte Order dt.25.10.2010. The respondents/plaintiffs filed their counter and opposed this application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that an order was already passed by this Court in I.A.No.3349/2009 wherein the petitioner/ defendant was directed to pay the arrears of rents to a tune of Rs.10,40,000/- and the said order was passed on 8.4.2010. Admittedly, the defendant failed to comply the said order. The suit docket discloses that the defendant failed to file the written statement in spite of giving more than 90 days time and consequently he was set ex parte on 25.10.2010. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.2375/2010 U/O.XV-A, Rule 2 of C.P.C to strike off the defence. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant shall not be allowed to contest the suit without paying the arrears of rents as ordered by this Court. Hence, this petition is allowed on depositing the arrears of rents Rs.10,40,000/- on or before 31.12.2010. Call on 31-12-2010.” 3. Consequent on the failure of the defendant to deposit the arrears, an ex parte decree came to be passed. The defendant filed I.A.No.2586 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 13, read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16-8-2011. Pending petition, the plaintiffs executed the decree and obtained delivery through Court. The said fact came to be recorded on 10-11-2011 in I.A.No.2586 of 2011. The docket order dated 10-11-2011 reads as hereunder:- “ Memo filed by respondents counsel that the property is already delivered through court. Counter not filed. At request posted to 14-11-11 finally”. The said order is assailed in this revision. 4. Heard Shri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court without passing orders on the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, proceeded to issue delivery warrant in the Execution Petition and thereby, valuable rights of the petitioner have been affected. A fact remains that the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC being I.A.No.2586 of 2011 is pending consideration. 6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of I.A.No.2586 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.11-11-2011 Note:- Issue CC by 14-11-2011 (B/o) *RAR