This Court ordered notice before admission on 10.7.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which was further extended for a further limited period.

2. C.R.P.M.P.No.4729 of 2008 is filed praying for vacation of the interim stay granted on 10.7.2008 in C.R.P.No.2636 of 2008. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing, the counsel representing the parties to the civil revision petition made a request for final disposal of the civil revision petition. The counsel on record also made elaborate submissions putting forth their respective stands.

3. The present civil revision petition is filed by Mohd. Abdul Wahab, the revision petitioner-first defendant, being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.84 of 2007 in O.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar.

4. Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit, State Bank of Hyderabad, main branch, Mahabubnagar, represented by Chief Manager, Mahabubnagar. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.51 of 2005 aforesaid. The respondent-plaintiff showing defendants 1 to 3 in the plaint filed the said suit, but however, claiming the relief as against the first defendant only showing the other parties as proforma parties. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, by order dated 11th day of March 2008, having appreciated the respective stands taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application and in the counter, came to the conclusion that it appears the petitioner intends to drag on the proceedings of the suit on some pretext or another and ultimately dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

5. Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties in the suit and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for rejection of plaint and the stand taken in the counter and further had drawn the attention of this Court to the decree made in O.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, and also further pointed to the order made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23577 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.3725 of 2004 in W.P.No.17986 of 2004 and would maintain that in the light of these admitted facts, even if the averments made in the plaint to be taken into consideration, the suit is clearly barred by lack of cause of action and also further barred by virtue of bar of operation of law i.e., Section 11 or Order II Rule 2 of the Code. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also would maintain that it is not as though there was only just an order of default in the prior suit, the same was proceeded with further and by virtue of Order IX Rule 11 of the Code an order was made dismissing the suit as against this revision petitioner and, when that being so, now it cannot be permitted on the part of respondent-plaintiff to contend otherwise so as to take shelter under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code. The learned counsel also had specifically pointed out to the relevant portion of the plaint where the averments were made relating to the institution of the prior suit O.S.No.13 of 2000 and the dismissal of the said suit for default on 13.10.2000 for non-payment of process and for not taking steps for service of summons. Hence, the learned counsel would maintain that in such circumstances when the suit is clearly barred by law, even as per the averments made in the plaint, and also suffers from serious infirmity of lack of cause of action, since second suit cannot be instituted on the strength of the same cause of action, it will be a futile