O R D E R The petitioner obtained a decree in 0.S.No.830 of 1997 against the respondent judgment-debtor restraining her from in any manner interfering with his possession. He filed E.P.No.525 of 1997 alleging that the respondent disobeyed the permanent injunction order granted in the suit. He also filed an execution application being E.A.No.925 of 1997 seeking police protection. The Court of IV Additional District Munsif. Visakhapatnam ordered the said application and issued a Memorandum to the Station House Officer (SHO), III Town Police Station (Law & Order), Visakhapatnam directing to protect the property of the petitioner herein. On 27.10.1997 the Court below passed the following order. This Execution Petition filed under Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C. by ordering attachment of the schedule mentioned properties of the J.Dr. for disobeying willfully the decree of the Court passed on 1.7.1997 and also order sale of the attached properties under Order 21 Rule 32(3) C.P.C. within six months and order to pay compensation to the D.Hr. as determined by the Court. Oral notice has been served on the Counsel for the D.Hr. and E.P. advanced to this day and in view of the subsequent events happened, the order passed in E.A.925/97 is hereby withdrawn and the police protection is ordered to be withdrawn and matter posted to 5.12.1997. Assailing the order dt.27.10.1997 this Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Venkataramana attacks the impugned order on the ground that the same is devoid of reasons, that oral notice is not permissible under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC- for brevity) and Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders (the Rules, for brevity) and that when the order in favour of the petitioner is withdrawn the Court ought to have heard the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent Sri K.S.R.Murthy, submits that on 31.12.1997 the petitioner has filed a Memorandum before the same Court and withdrew the E.P. after having obtained an order of Police protection from this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Civil Revision Petition itself does not survive. The factum that the petitioner filed Memorandum withdrawing the E.P. is denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Civil Revision Petition itself does not survive. The factum that the petitioner filed Memorandum withdrawing the E.P. is denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, this Civil Revision Petition raises a question as to whether the trial Court is entitled to advance a case and recall an order in favour of the decree holder? In my considered opinion, the trial Court not only committed grave error apparent on the face of the record, but also committed an error in exercise of jurisdiction Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders are made by the High Court of Judicature. Andhra Pradesh in exercise of their powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 126 of C.P.C. Rules 59 and 109 of the Rules which are relevant are extracted hereunder. 59. (New) Copies to opposite party:- Every interlocutory application shall be supported by an affidavit and true copies of the application, affidavit and the documents, if any, which the applicant intends to use or on which he intends to rely. shall be furnished to the opposite party or his advocate, unless otherwise ordered, not less than three clear days before the hearing date. 109. (28) Notice of adjournment: (1) Any party desiring an adjournment may give notice in writing to the other party, or his advocate, of his. intention to apply therefor in advance before the date fixed for hearing. (2) Any party who desires that the hearing may be advanced, may apply therefor by Interlocutory Application of which notice shall be given to the other party. (3) The party served with notice may give to the other party, or his Advocate, a notice in writing that he consents to. or will oppose such adjournment or advancement. (4) Every application for adjournment or advancement of hearing of a case shall be made as soon as the court sits for the day. The court shall pass orders of adjournment during call work while settling the work for the day. The Rules have the same force and effect as if they had been contained in the I Schedule to CPC. Chapter V of the Rules deals with interlocutory proceedings. Every interlocutory application has to be made in Form No. 13 by way of a petition. The Rules have the same force and effect as if they had been contained in the I Schedule to CPC. Chapter V of the Rules deals with interlocutory proceedings. Every interlocutory application has to be made in Form No. 13 by way of a petition. All interlocutory applications are to be supported by an affidavit and in a pending suit a true copy of the interlocutory application along with affidavit has to be furnished to the opposite party or to his advocate. In a pending suit or proceeding the service of interlocutory application on the advocate of opposite party is sufficient compliance insofar as service of notice is concerned. Rule 109 (2) of the Rules deals with notice of adjournment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 109 of the Rules enables a party to a suit to request the Court to advance the date of hearing and all such requests shall have to be given by way of interlocutory application supported by affidavit. Therefore. Rule 109(2) read with Rule 59 makes it mandatory every notice of advancement shall have to be in writing by way of interlocutory application. Oral application besides not only being archaic but also goes contrary to the Rules which form part of I Schedule to CPC. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court is not correct and requires revision by this Court both under provisions of Section 115 of the CPC as well as Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the lower Court is set aside. No costs. --X—