Heard Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.

2. In the light of the view expressed by the Division Bench in Union Bank of India v. M/s. Andhra Technocrat Industries AIR 1992 A.P. 408, office objection was over-ruled on 04-02-2005 and the Registry was directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. Interim suspension was granted on 17-02-2005 on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the interim suspension was made absolute on 4-3-2005 since the conditional order had been complied with.

3. Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court or Order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred as “the code” for the purpose of convenience), and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 46-A of the Code and would maintain that instead of deciding the question in controversy, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally totally erred in observing that these aspects also can be decided at the time o