Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the order, dated 09.10.2009, made in I.A.No.18445 of 2009, in O.S.No.2780 of 2007, on the file of the II Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order, dated 09.10.2009, made in I.A.No.18445 of 2009, in O.S.No.2780 of 2007, has been passed by the learned II Asst.City Civil Court Judge, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 3. On an perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the learned II Asst.City Civil Court Judge, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 09.10.2009, as "Heard and allowed". Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner,appearing on behalf of the respondent, had submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in Court, when the said order was passed, there is nothing to show that the order, dated 09.10.2009, had been passed by the learned II Asst.City Civil Court Judge, after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, in I.A.No.18445 of 2009. 4. In such circumstances, the order, in I.A.No.18445 of 2009, is set aside and the II Asst.City Civil Court Judge is directed to hear and dispose of I.A.No.18445 of 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. All the grounds available to the petitioner could be raised at the time of the hearing of I.A.No.18445 of 2009 before the learned II Asst.City Civil Court Judge. 5. This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. As the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, in the present Civil Revision Petition, had stated that the suit, in O.S.No.2780 of 2007, is at a part-heard stage, the learned II Assistant City Civil Court Judge is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible.