THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA. C.R.P. No. 3445 of 2009 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 02.07.2009, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 715 of 2009 in A.S. No. 80 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, praying to extend the stay orders dated 06.04.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the after the judgment in the suit, he served caveat on the respondent. However, the respondent with a view to avoid notice to the petitioner- caveator, filed the appeal mentioning the suit number wrongly, in that he mentioned O.S. No. 2813 of 2003 instead of O.S. No. 1821 of 2003, and obtained ex parte interim order. After obtaining the ex parte interim order, and at the time of numbering the appeal, the respondent in connivance with the counsel, corrected the suit number in the I.A. from O.S. No. 2813 of 2003 to O.S. No. 1821 of 2003. He submitted that since the respondent obtained the ex parte interim order by playing fraud upon the Court, the same be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Since the petitioner has made allegations of tampering and interpolation in the court record, this Court by order dated 21.10.2009, directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to call for a report from the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. As directed, the Registrar (Vigilance) placed before the Court, the report called for by him from the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The report of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, contains xerox copies of the affidavit, petition and the note of the Bench Clerk, as enclosures. A perusal of the xerox copies of the affidavit, petition and endorsement made by the Bench Clerk, would disclose that corrections are made in the affidavit and petition by striking off the typed matter and writing with the pen, while the Bench Clerk has made an endorsement on the petition “No Caveat Petition is pending”. If the allegations made by the petitioner that by the time the respondent filed, he had already filed Caveat Petition, and that the respondent in connivance with his counsel had made corrections in the affidavit and petition after obtaining ex parte injunction order, are true, then it is a very serious matter, which has to be enquired into. Hence, it is a fit case where the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, has to conduct an enquiry with regard to the corrections made in the affidavit and petition, whether they existed prior to obtaining of the ex parte interim order or were made after obtaining the ex parte order, and take necessary action against the officer concerned who is responsible for allowing such interpolations. No coming to the matter, both the counsel agreed for disposal of the C.R.P. with the following directions: The II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, is directed to dispose of the main appeal itself within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting adjournments. Accordingly, with directions as above to the District Judge, Ranga Reddy as also to the Court below, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 28th October, 2009 KSR