APHC010412442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Shaik Zilani Basha Shaik Shamimun and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAREEMULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following The petitioner had filed O.S.No.374 of 2006 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsaraopeta, for Recovery of Possession of the Suit Schedule Property decreed, the petitioner filed E.P.No.83 of 2018. 2. The petitioner has now approached this Court with a complaint that there has been an extraordinary delay in the petition, despite the passage of seven years. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 109/2025 ...PETITIONER AND Shaik Shamimun and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: KAREEMULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following Order: The petitioner had filed O.S.No.374 of 2006 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsaraopeta, for Recovery of Possession of the Suit Schedule Property. After the suit decreed, the petitioner filed E.P.No.83 of 2018. The petitioner has now approached this Court with a complaint that extraordinary delay in the disposal of the said execution petition, despite the passage of seven years. A copy of the docket IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3206] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The petitioner had filed O.S.No.374 of 2006 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsaraopeta, for fter the suit was The petitioner has now approached this Court with a complaint that said execution copy of the docket 2 proceedings for the period from 14.11.2018 to 17.10.2024 has also been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case has not been taken up by the Executing Court and, more specifically, from March 2023. The notings in the docket proceedings would show that the matter has been posted for arguments from time to time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a handicapped person who is unable to get the fruits of the decree. He would submit that the docket proceedings clearly show that there has been no progress in the Execution Petition for at least two years and that such an undue delay in disposal of the said Execution Petition is clearly affecting the interests of the petitioner herein. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a handicapped person and that the Execution Petition relates to a suit initiated in 2006, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to dispose of the Execution Petition with a direction to the Executing Court to complete the hearing of the E.P. at the earliest. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, directing the Executing Court to dispose of E.P. No. 83 of 2018 at the earliest and not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. 3 [ As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 07.02.2025 PNS 4