1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) APHC010312002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1700/2026 Between: 1. TEJAVATH VARALAMMA, W/O MAGATA NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D. NO 1-36, ELURU KALAVAKATTA, VENIKEPADU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. 2. BHUKYA BALAMMA, W/O DOLANAYAK, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O PONDUGALA, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BHUKYA KRISHNA, S/O DOLANAIAK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST, R/O PNDUGALA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BHUKYA CHINNI, C/O BHUKYA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O PONDUGALA VILLAGE MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. BHUKYA KUMARASWAMY, S/O BHUKYA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O PONDUGALA VILLAGE MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. BHUKYA MANTRI, W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, JAMALAPURAM VILLAGE MADHIRA MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT 5. BHUKYA SRINNIVAS NAIK, S/O DOLONAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O PONDUGALA VILLAGE MYLAVARAM MANDAL, 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to Allow the present Civil Revision Petition by directing the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge at Mylavaram to dispose of the suit O.S. No 1 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) ORDER :- Heard Sri K.S.S.Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/revision petitioners seeking a direction to dispose of O.S.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Mylavaram. 3. For the order proposed to be passed, and having regard to the nature of the grievance raised, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that O.S.No.1 of 2017 was instituted seeking declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property. Despite the lapse of more than nine years, the suit has not been disposed of and the progress of the proceedings has been unduly slow. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajindra Singh (Dead) through LRs and Others v. Prem Mai and Others1, , has observed and held that speedy disposal of cases and speedy justice are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and has 1 (2007) 11 SCC 37 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) deprecated delay in the disposal of cases. He has placed emphasis on paragraph Nos. 9 to 11 of the judgment, which read as under: “9. Before parting with this case we would like to express our anguish at the delay in disposal of cases in our law courts. The present case is a typical illustration. A suit filed in 1957 has rolled on for half a century. It reminds one of the case Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in Charles Dickens' novel Bleak House which had rolled on for decades, consuming litigants and lawyers alike. 10. We may quote a passage from Bleak House written in Dickens' inimitable style: “Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendry hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.” 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) Is this not descriptive of the situation prevailing in India today? 11. People in India are simply disgusted with this state of affairs, and are fast losing faith in the judiciary because of the inordinate delay in disposal of cases. We request the authorities concerned to do the needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy disposal of cases if the people's faith in the judiciary is to remain.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the High Court has also issued notifications in this regard. He refers to Notification No.3/SO/2016, whereby the Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts Rules, 2012 (for short, "the Rules, 2012") have been notified. He submits that Rule 3, which relates to the categorization of suits and other proceedings, mandates that the Presiding Officers of the subordinate courts shall categorize suits and other proceedings into Track-I, Track-II, Track-III and Track-IV in the manner specified therein and shall endeavour to dispose of the cases track- wise within the prescribed time. However, O.S. No.1 of 2017 has not been disposed of within the time prescribed for its category under the Rules, 2012. 7. Learned counsel referred to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2012, which reads as under: “3. Categorization of suits and other proceedings : (1) The Presiding Officer of the Court shall categorize the suits: and proceedings in his Court into Track-I, Track-II, Track-III and Track-IV, in the following manner : 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) (a) Track-I: Cases pertaining to (1) Maintenance, (2) Child Custody, (3) Appointment of guardian and wards, (4) Visiting rights, (5) Letters of Administration, (6) Succession Certificate, (7) Recovery of Rent, (8) Permanent injunction. (b) Track-II: Cases pertaining to (1) Execution, (2) Divorce, (3) Eviction. (c) Track-III Cases pertaining to (1) Partition, (2) Declaration, (3) specific performance, (4) Possession, (S) Mandatory Injunction, (6) Appeals, (7) Damages, (8) Easements, (9). Trade Marks, Copy Rights, Patents, (10) Intellectual Property, Rights.” 8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the right of speedy justice flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy disposal, speedy justice, and the prompt disposal of cases is also the need of the day, but at the same time, there are various factors causing delays in the disposal of cases, and many times beyond the control of the court and many times adjournment is granted for the cause of justice, which need no reiteration. 10. There is also no dispute that the rules have been framed for the expeditious disposal of cases by the district Courts, with the object that there may not be delay in the disposal of cases. With that object, the categorization of cases has also been provided in Track-I to Track-IV in the manner specified, prescribing a time limit for disposal. 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) 11. However, while the time limit is prescribed with the object of expeditious disposal, it cannot be laid down that the time limit is always mandatory. Many factors, depending on different situations and facts in each and every case demand sometimes more than the specified time limit for disposal. The time limit specified under the rules cannot be read or interpreted at the cost of justice according to law. If it is not possible to decide or dispose of the cases within the time limit, such time limit can never be considered as mandatory, though all the efforts shall be made to achieve expeditious disposal, and if possible, within the time specified. 12. On the point of direction to the learned trial Courts for disposal of the matters in specified time, in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi V. State of Maharashtra 2 , the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad V. State of Uttar Pradesh3, observed at paragraph No.7 as under : “In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the Case of 'High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh', this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus: "47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 3 (2024) 6 SCC 267 8 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending.” 13. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association (supra) and finding no exceptional case to fix a time for disposal by the learned trial Court, this Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself, providing that the learned Junior Civil Judge at Mylavaram, shall make efforts to dispose of O.S.No.1 of 2017 along with pending I.As., as expeditiously as possible, also leaving the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for prioritizing the disposal of the suit in the decision of that Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date : 16.07.2026. RPD. 9 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1700 of 2026) 74 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISPOSED OF) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1700 of 2026 Date : 16.07.2026 RPD.