THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2691 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.787 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Vijayawada, instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3, which was decreed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the appeal along with I.A.No.1076 of 2024 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The same is pending for disposal before the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna. He submits that the application is pending since long time and on the other hand, the decree holder has applied for execution in E.P.No.91 of 2025. He submits the urgency and that the appellate Court ought to have considered the application expeditiously. 4. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2 And Others12, this Court is granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court concerned or the learned Principal District Judge, raising the same grievance, upon which the Court concerned or the learned Principal District Judge as the case may be shall take appropriate decision. Paras 42 and 43 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra), read as under: “42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cas- es pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges g of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 43. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceed- ings in the constitutional courts. Those litigants who can af- ford to approach the constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of- turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time-frame. In a sense, no court of blaw is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as set- ting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary cir- cumstances.” 1 (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 267 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1378 3 5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 17.10.2025 Pab 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2691 of 2025 Date:- 17.10.2025 Pab