JUDGMENT 1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.10.2021 in IA No.274 of 2025 (old number IA No.240 of 2021) in OS No.861 of 2024 (old number OS No.1130 of 2021) on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal [previously on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool]. 2. The respondent No.1 herein filed suit against the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 for recovery of Rs.18,11,018/- based on promissory note executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same was subsequently transferred by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Alongwith the suit, IA No.240 of 2021 was filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. The Trial Court i.e., IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, on 21.10.2021, granted ex parte interim order of attachment before judgment. Later, IA No.375 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. before the same Court. Vide order dated 12.11.2024, the Trial Court allowed IA No.375 of 2024 for return of the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and directed to file in proper Court within a week. As such, the suit was represented before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal. The office of that Court placed a note on 04.12.2024 seeking permission to renumber the suit in view of the order dated 12.11.2024 in IA No.375 of 2024. Thus, on 06.12.2024, the said Court issued notices to the defendant and called for records from Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool [sic IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool]. 4. Accordingly, while renumbering the suit as OS No.861 of 2024, IA No.240 of 2021 was also renumbered as IA No.274 of 2025. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the present revision petition contending that since the earlier suit was never adjudicated on merits due to lack of jurisdiction, the interim order dated 21.10.2021 passed in IA No.240 of 2021 cannot be automatically revived and that a fresh determination of the interim application is required in accordance with law, considering the changed forum and fresh proceedings. 6. 6. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in EXL Careers and another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 621, wherein it was held that after return of plaint and its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted afresh, even if it stood concluded before the earlier Court. 7. There is no dispute about the legal proposition said supra. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff conceded that a fresh hearing of application in IA No.274 of 2025 is required and the order passed on 21.10.2021 in IA No.240 of 2021 becomes non-est. 9. The order dated 21.10.2021 in IA No.240 of 2021 is non-est. after the suit was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The said order shall be treated as not continuing to operate as is apprehended by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner could have represented the same before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal and both parties could have advanced arguments for adjudication on merits. 10. In view thereof, the civil revision petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court i.e., Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal to hear and dispose of IA No.274 of 2025 in OS No.861 of 2024 on its file afresh as per law. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.