1 NV,J CRP.No.1797 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1797 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the inaction of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa in dismissing T.O.P.No.39 of 2024 dated 03.04.2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the III Additional Junior Civil Judge Court in Kadapa has not been disposing of E.P. No. 144 of 2018 despite the directions from this Court in C.R.P. No. 1980 of 2023, dated 29.04.2024. As a result, the petitioner filed T.O.P. No. 39 of 2024 before the District Court, seeking the transfer of the case to another court. However, by order dated 03.04.2025 in T.O.P. No. 39 of 2024, the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the transfer petition. The petitioner is now challenging this dismissal through the present civil revision petition. 3. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court is acting in a biased manner, frequently adjourning the case without due diligence despite the orders of this Court. Furthermore, the court has failed to dispose of E.P. No. 144 of 2018. When this issue was brought to the attention of the District Court, it was dismissed without any reason. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it is appears that the very same petitioner herein – Gantem Jagadeesh Kumar filed CR.P.No.1980 of 2023 before this 2 NV,J CRP.No.1797 of 2025 Hon’ble Court and the same was disposed of on 29.04.2024, with the following direction: “since the claim petition is pending since 2019, particularly due to the order of stay in S.A.No.712 of 2018 which was disposed of on 02.05.2023, and therefore, there is no hurdle, the claim petition can be disposed of without any further delay. As such, the Execution Court can dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible, without any further delay.” 5. Therefore, while disposing of the C.R.P.No.1980 of 2023 earlier, this Hon’ble Court noted that the claim petition has been pending since 2019, and since S.A. No. 712 of 2018 has already been disposed of, there is no hurdle to decide the claim petition without further delay. Conscious of the direction issued by this Court on 29.04.2024, i.e more than one year four months, the Trial Court did not evince any interest to dispose of E.P.No.144 of 2018, for the reasons best known to it. 6. Even after disposal of appeal, keeping pending E.P. without disposal is certainly contrary to settled law held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhoj Raj Garg vs. Goyal Education and Welfare Society1 and Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani2 requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing. Any delay thereafter without any reasonable grounds will attract disciplinary action against the concerned Presiding Officer. 11 SLP(C) No.19654 of 2022 2 SLP© Nos.8490 of 2020 dated 06.03.2025 3 NV,J CRP.No.1797 of 2025 7. In Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi3, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued mandatory direction requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing. 8. It appears that the transfer application is filed due to delay in ordering E.P. i.e. E.P.no.144 of 2018. On perusal of the material and in view of the ratio as mentioned above, interference of this Court is unwarranted. Further, the Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the transfer petition on the ground of delay in deciding E.P, thereby the transfer petition cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed in T.O.P.No.39 of 2024 dated 03.4.2025. 9. In the case in hand, indisputably, the subject E.P is pending more than six months and years together. Therefore, it is a fit case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings in lieu of compliance of the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Speedy justice is also a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, as per the directions of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation4 and circular orders of the High Court, old cases of more than five years old have to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra. 3 Civil Appeal nos.1659-1660 of 2021 dated22.04.2021 4 AIR 2018 SC 2039 4 NV,J CRP.No.1797 of 2025 11. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of E.P.No.144 of 2018 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the concerned Presiding Officer(s) for causing such inordinate delay in disposing of E.P. 13. In the result, civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. _____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Date: 28.08.2025 SP 5 NV,J CRP.No.1797 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1797 OF 2025 28.08.2025 W SP