THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.968 and 974 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties to the matters are the same and they arise out of the same suit, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Civil Revision Petitions by way of a Common Order. 2. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of Interlocutory Application No.194 of 2020 in I.A.No.150 of 2018 in I.A.No.541 of 2017 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, Civil Revision Petition in 974 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of Original Suit No.176 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, Civil Revision Petition in 968 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: i) Petitioner No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur. 2 ii) Initially, the petitioner No.1/plaintiff herein filed suit in O.S.No.176 of 2012 against respondents 1 & 2 herein/defendants for declaration of title to the suit schedule property shown as ‘HIJK’ of the plaint plan, for delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the structures located therein. The defendants filed written statement in the said suit. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1/plaintiff filed I.A.No.541 of 2017 seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property, to file a report and plan by making personal inspection of the petition schedule property and measure the vacant site up to 10 feet towards the western side from ‘AF’ of the plaint plan and find out whether the schedule property is a part and parcel of the ‘rasta’. ii) Subsequently I.A.No.150 of 2018 was filed seeking to re-direct the advocate commissioner to note the width of small construction towards the western side of ‘AF’ wall of the plaint plan, to note the width of sunshade on the AF wall of the house, to note the measurements i.e., height and width of the steps of respondents’ house and to measure the house, vacant site and rasta as per the measurements of registered sale deeds of plaintiff with the help of Mandal Surveyor. 3 iii) Subsequently, I.A.No.194 of 2020 was filed seeking to redirect the advocate commissioner to note the ‘panta kalva’ situated on the eastern side of petitioner/plaintiff’s vacant site and to measure the house of defendants as per the measurement of the document dated 03.07.1979 i.e., Ac.0.09 cents as per document schedule with the help of district surveyor. The said application was filed on the ground that the advocate commissioner, in his report and plan failed to note the ‘panta kalva’ situated on the eastern side of the vacate house of the plaintiff and also failed to measure the house of defendants as per the document dated 03.07.1979. iv) During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-R.Chennamma died on 15.09.2019 and upon her death, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 were brought on record as her legal representatives. Defendant No.1 also died leaving behind her son, who is already on record as defendant No.2 and her daughter who has been added as defendant No.5 in the suit. v) Aggrieved by the non-disposal of I.A.No.194 of 2020 for more than four years from the date of its filing, and the lack of progress in the suit, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to expedite the disposal of I.A.No.194 of 2020 as well as to expedite the trial in O.S.No.176 of 2012. 4 5. Heard Sri Shaik Md.Uma Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that in view of the fact that more than 13 years have been lapsed since the institution of original suit, the Court below ought to have expedited the trial. He further contended that I.A.No.194 of 2020 has been pending for consideration from more than four years from the date of its filing without any progress. He further submitted that despite several requests made by the petitioners to accord priority and hear the matter, the Court below has neither recorded the objections nor the requests of the petitioners and has merely passed a mechanical order stating ‘I.A. Pending’. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. As culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit is of the year 2012 and has remained pending for over a decade. The interlocutory application has also pending from more than four years from the date of its filing without adjudication. Such inordinate delay in disposal of both the interlocutory application and the main suit defeats the very object of 5 speedy justice and results in prejudice to the parties. Since the relief sought is innocuous, hearing the other side can be dispensed with. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme in several judgments has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to fix a time limit for disposal of cases by the subordinate courts, as the same would amount to interference with the judicial discretion and docket management of the courts below. 10. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to fix any specific time frame for the disposal of the interlocutory application and the main suit. However, considering that the interlocutory application has been pending for more than four years and that the suit is of the year 2012, the Court below is directed to dispose of the Interlocutory Application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and to proceed with the trial of O.S. No.176 of 2012 without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. 11. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, is directed to dispose of I.A. No.194 of 2020 in I.A. No.150 of 2018 in I.A. No.541 of 2017 in O.S. No.176 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible and thereafter, to proceed with the trial of O.S. No.176 of 2012 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, 6 as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Court below for early disposal of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 06.03.2026 MP 7 212 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.968 and 974 of 2025 06.03.2026 MP