Telangana High Court
Medari Narsimulu vs Medaram Devendhar on 19 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2031 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 22.07.2022, in C.M.A.No.12 of 2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nirmal, wherein the learned Principal District Judge, Nirmal, confirmed the order and decree, dated 03.07.2013 in I.A.No.280 of 2013 in O.S.No.67 of 2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal.
2. The learned trial Court by an order, dated 03.07.2013 in I.A.No.280 of 2013 in O.S.No.67 of 2013, granted temporary injunction and the same has been operating all through till date. The order under appeal was passed on 22.07.2022 and the certified copy of the same was delivered to the petitioners on 18.08.2022. But, for the reasons best known, the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition only on 01.07.2023 i.e., almost after lapse of one year under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for filing the revision petition. But, taking into consideration the fact that the temporary injunction that was granted on 03.07.2013 by the 2 learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, has been operating for almost more than a decade and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners herein are not diligent in prosecuting the matter and have deliberately delayed the matter for a period of one year and approached this Court, this Court is not inclined to exercise its superintendent jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Even otherwise, this Court has gone through the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate Court, dated 03.07.2013 and 22.07.2022, and in complete agreement with the reasons assigned in the said orders. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned lower appellate Court failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners with regard to the order, dated 22.06.2013, passed in I.A.No.296 of 2013 in I.A.No.280 of 2013 in O.S.No.67 of 2013 i.e., the application filed in I.A.No.280 of 2013, but not in the main suit.
6. In view of the same, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move a fresh application in O.S.No.67 of 2013 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, if so advised, and in case, if any such application is filed in the main suit within a 3 period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be examined by the learned trial Court on its own merits, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners to seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose, as sought for in I.A.No.296 of 2013 or otherwise. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this revision petition shall also stand closed.
____________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J Date: 19.07.2023 Note:- Issue C.C. two days.
(B/o) YVL 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2031 of 2023 Date:19.07.2023 YVL