Or.39 rule 1 and 2 - non disposal of IA - the interlocutory application was adjourned time to time, it appears nearly 23 months as on today. It appears there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to non-disposal of the interlocutory application for these long period, definitely the petitioner ought to have suffered a lot. In view of the same, this Court is of the 4 opinion that the Court below has to dispose of the I.A.No.611 of 2018 expeditiously

 Or.39 rule 1 and 2 - non disposal of IA -  the interlocutory application was adjourned time to time, it appears nearly 23 months as on today. It appears there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to non-disposal of the interlocutory application for these long period, definitely the petitioner ought to have suffered a lot. In view of the same, this Court is of the 4 opinion that the Court below has to dispose of the I.A.No.611 of 2018 expeditiously.

AP HIGH COURT

 1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1201 of 2020

K.B. Varadaraju,

Versus

H.K. Panduranga Rao,

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in

I.A.No.611 of 2018 in O.S.No.245 of 2018 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

2) Heard Sri A. Anand Achary, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

3) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the

defendant in the Court below.

4) The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed

the suit in O.S.No.245 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Hindupur, seeking perpetual injunction against the

respondent in respect of the suit schedule property. The

petitioner also filed I.A.No.611 of 2018 along with the said suit

seeking temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner

restraining the respondent and their men from petitioner’s

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule

property.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

I.A.No.611 of 2018 filed by the petitioner, notice was ordered on 

 2

13.11.2018 and it was posted to 20.12.2018. On 20.12.2018

Vakalat was filed by one Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

On 27.02.2019 counter was filed. Thereafter till today, the

interlocutory application was not disposed of. Due to nondisposal of the interlocutory application, the respondent is

attempting to grab the suit schedule property for making

constructions illegally and unauthorizedly over the suit land for

which the loss being caused to the petitioner is irreparable.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on

account of the dilatory tactics being played by the respondent

clubbed with his mis-representation that a CRP is pending, the

interlocutory application proceedings are being dragged on

abnormally and taking advantage of the delay in the

pronouncement of the orders of Interim Injunction petition

pending disposal of the suit, the respondent has been

attempting to grab the suit land for making construction

illegally and unauthorizedly over the suit land. The inaction of

the Court below is leading to multiplicity of proceedings.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

brother of the respondent filed W.P.No.15287 of 2020 claiming

the petitioner’s suit land basing on the forged rectified partition

deed without source of title. Learned counsel further submits

that on account of the illegal attempts of the respondent based 

 3

on the forged Rectified partition deed by adding the suit

schedule property, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with

the police and on their failure he filed a Writ Petition in

W.P.No.16271 of 2019 and got a direction to the police to

register the crime and intestate into. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that due to non-disposal of the

interlocutory application, the petitioner is suffering a lot and she

is being put too much hardship.

8) As seen from the docket orders of the Court below, it is

clear that the petitioner filed I.A.No.611 of 2018 in O.S.No.245

of 2018 on 13.11.2018 and the same has been adjourning from

time to time till 12.02.2021.

9) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and upon perusing the docket order of the Court

below, the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondent on 27.02.2020 and thereafter on one pretext or the

other, the interlocutory application was adjourned time to time,

it appears nearly 23 months as on today. It appears there is

some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that due to non-disposal of the interlocutory

application for these long period, definitely the petitioner ought

to have suffered a lot. In view of the same, this Court is of the 

 4

opinion that the Court below has to dispose of the I.A.No.611 of

2018 expeditiously.

10) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of

directing the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur to dispose

of the I.A.No.611 of 2018 in O.S.No.245 of 2018 in accordance

with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from today. Till

then, both parties shall maintain status-quo as on today with

regard to the suit schedule property. There is no order as to

costs.

 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

this petition shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

Dt. 20.11.2020

Note: Issue CC tomorrow.

 B/o

 PGR