Respondent did not appear on any of the dates of hearing.  As the respondent was not being served through ordinary process, the petitioner moved an application to serve the respondent by way of publication.  The said prayer was allowed.  Notices have been published in ‘Indian Express’ dated 20.11.2009 and ‘Ennadu’ Telugu

-2-

edition for today’s hearing.  Respondent is not present.  Proceeded ex-parte.

          Petitioner Bank was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent No.1/complainant was maintaining two Fixed Deposits, FD No.32/81 for Rs.20,986.68 ps and FD No.33/81 for Rs.54,703.75 ps with the Petitioner Bank.  The petitioner bank withheld the payment of Fixed Deposits of Respondent No.1 on the ground that her brother had become a Judgment Debtor in OS No.90/1984 before the Principle Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.  Respondent’s case was that she had not connection with her brother and the amount in the Fixed Deposits be released to her, but in vain.  Thereafter, she filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which complainant/respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint.  Petitioner has been

directed to refund the amounts of Rs.20,986.68 paise and Rs.54,703.75 paise with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment.  State Commission has held that the preliminary Decree against the brother of Respondent No.1 in OS No.90/1984 was set aside by the High Court.  In the meanwhile, the Principal Subordinate Judge passed a final Decree as well, against which a revision was carried to the High Court.  High Court set aside the final Decree as well on the ground that the preliminary Decree, based on which the final Decree has been passed, has already been set aside. 

          Counsel for the petitioner then contends that respondent No.1 has created the charge on Fixed Deposits in favour of the petitioner and handed over the duly discharged Fixed Deposits to the petitioner bank.  No such document was produced before the District Forum or State Commission or even before us.  In the absence of creation of charge and duly discharged Fixed Deposits, the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed.

-4-

          Since the respondent is not present,  we pass no order as to costs.