APHC010094982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 602/2026 Between: 1. SMT.RAYAVARAPU AKKULAMMA,, WIFE OF R.APPA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 19-506/25, DARAPALEM, ADAVIVARAM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. YEDLAMURI CHILAKAMMA, son of Sanyasi Rao, Aged about years. Residing at D.No.51-14-29/5, First Floor (West Portion), Kranthi Nagar, Near Sri Sarada Vidya Nilayam, Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 602 /2026 ORDER: Heard Sri Shaik Shahedaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2022 against the respondent pending in the Court of the learned Rent Controller-cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. The grievance raised in the present C.R.P is that the said case is pending for almost four years and has not yet been decided and as per para No.5 of the grounds of the revision, on various dates the simple adjournments had been granted. 4. The prayer is for direction to the said Court for expeditious disposal of R.C.C.No.1 of 2022. 5. On consideration of the submission advanced, I do not find it a case of exceptional nature to order for expeditious disposal, out of turn. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others12, held as under in para Nos. 42 and 43: 1 (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 267 3 “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 cases 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 ap- proach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional courts. Those litigants who can afford to ap- proach the constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take un- due 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 hie- rarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other courts by directing that only certain cases should be de- cided 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 ra- tional basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction for such expeditious disposal to the learned Court but provides that it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned District Judge or/and the Court concerned, for expeditious disposal by filing appropriate application. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 4 _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 27.02.2026 Pab 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 602 /2026 DATE: 27.02.2026 Pab