APHC010602042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 398/2025 Between: Utikonda Padmavathi ...PETITIONER AND Atla Chandrakala ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GOURAVARAPU VENKATA LEELA SUNDARAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following order:- The present civil revision petition is filed seeking to direct the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.883 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, as expeditiously as possible. 2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.883 of 2024 under Section 26 and Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of the amount from the respondent. Now, present civil revision petition is filed to direct the trial Court to dispose of the said suit, expeditiously, on the grounds that petitioner facing so many financial problems, health issues, ill health condition in day to day life and does not have capacity to continue the said suit for a long period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.180 of 2024 and some other orders for a direction to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 4. Whereas, in the said C.R.P.No.180 of 2024, the suit was of the year 2017 and on verification of other orders, the suits are old suits. Hence, this Court directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. In the case on hand, the suit was of the year 2024. 5. It is trite, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and in 3 cases of exceptional rarity. The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court to keep Courts of the District Judicature and Tribunals within their bounds of authority and see that they discharge their functions as per the mandate prescribed under law. But, that does not mean that this Court is to intermeddle with the proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals, at each and every stage, that too on the mere asking of parties, particularly to dispose of a suit in precedence to older pending matters. 6. In Sasidharan Nair vs Anil Kumar case, a learned judge of Kerala High Court following the Division Bench judgment of the same Court held that in the following manner: “…It is well settled law that the High Court, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India normally it should not issue direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a particular time, unless the compelling circumstance warranting the issuance of such a direction to meet the ends of justice. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage. Unless justifiable grounds made out, to direct the out of turn disposal of the said suit, and upset the apple cart of the suits already listed for trial before the Court below, where there is a huge backlog of suits and applications. Emphatically held that 'out-of-turn' hearings cause injustice to other litigants. Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. It would be up to the petitioner to move the Court below by filing an application, seeking for an out-of- turn disposal of the suit…” 4 7. In the opinion of the Court, the grounds were invented for the purpose of filing of this Civil Revision Petition. The grounds raised for early disposal of the case are not worth and valid grounds to grant the relief. In fact, the petitioner has circumvented the law and filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. This Court is of the considered view, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to order to expedite the hearing of O.S.No.883 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to pay the costs, the Registry is directed to recover the amount by initiating appropriate proceedings. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 18.02.2025 KBN 5 21 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.398 of 2025 Date: 18.02.2025 KBN