APHC010723922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 224/2026 Between: Resapu Srinivas Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.B V KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: RNT, J CRP No.224 of 2026 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 224 of 2026 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri B. V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiff/respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited filed O.S.No.185 of 2025 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the said case, the petitioners (defendants in the suit) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. In the said application time was granted to the respondent/plaintiff to file counter on various dates, viz., 15.04.2025, 05.05.2025, 07.05.2025, 07.07.2025, 09.09.2025, 15.09.2025, but the counter was not filed. Thereafter on 22.09.2025, the Presiding Officer was on medical leave, the suit was posted to 09.10.2025. On 09.10.2025, at request of both the counsels, it was adjourned to 13.10.2025. On 13.10.2025 again the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2025 as there was no representation for the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter the matter was fixed for hearing to 08.12.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff/respondent has not yet filed the counter and for filing counter, he was seeking adjournments, resulting into non-disposal of the I.A.No.125 of 2025 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He further submits that in view of Rule 8 (3) of the Chapter-21 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the interlocutory application shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of appearance of the other RNT, J CRP No.224 of 2026 3 side. But in the present case, the application I.A.No.125 of 2025 has not been disposed of. 4. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed being aggrieved for non- disposal of the I.A.No.125 of 2025 in O.S.No.185 of 2025 by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the interlocutory application deserves to be decided and considered in time bound manner. He placed reliance in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.1 in support of his contentions. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 7. I am of the view that as per Rule 8 (3) proviso which provides that the interlocutory application be disposed of within a period of 30 days, being a rule of procedure, cannot be construed as mandatory. There may be various circumstances for which the interlocutory applications many times cannot be disposed of within 30 days, though an endeavour is to be made within the stipulated time and expeditiously. Any consequences for failure to decide within 30 days has not been provided. The provision at best is directory, though with the object to decide expeditiously. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court should have made an attempt to expeditiously consider and decide the application. From the material available on record, it is evident that almost six times time was granted to file counter, but even then it has not been filed, delaying the disposal of I.A.No.125 of 2025. 1 (2024) 6 SCC 267 RNT, J CRP No.224 of 2026 4 8. In Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 42 held 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 cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges 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.” 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment, considering the docket proceedings of the learned trial Court, it is evident that on 28.03.2025 the application I.A.No.125 of 2025 was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which is pending undecided as on today, in spite of almost 10 dates having been fixed and 10 months having elapsed. 10. This Court is of the view that appropriate directions need to be issued to the learned trial Court for disposal of pending I.A.No.125 of 2025 in this case, as exceptional circumstances, to meet the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, the civil revision petition is disposed of finally, with a direction to the learned trial Court to consider and decide the application I.A.No.125 of 2025 in O.S.No.185 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 5 (five) months from the date a copy of this order is produced, in accordance with land and with due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, and subject to their cooperation, without any unnecessary adjournments. No order as to costs. RNT, J CRP No.224 of 2026 5 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 31.01.2026 Dsr