There is no representation on the side of the revision petitioner.
2. To avoid an avoidable delay and bearing in mind the limited prayer made by the revision petitioner in the revision, this Court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the respondent.
3. The prayer of the revision petitioner is for a direction to be issued by this Court to the learned Appellate Authority viz., Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul to dispose of R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 pending on its file as expeditiously as possible.
4. It is to be borne in mind that before the Appellate Authority viz., the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul, R.C.A.No.4 of 2004, I.A.No.16 of 2006 and I.A.No.22 of 2008 are pending and the matters lastly have been adjourned to 13/4/2008. It transpires that R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 is pending for arguments from 30/7/2004 and later I.A.No.16 of 2006 and I.A.No.22 of 2008 are also pending till date. Significantly, I.A.No.16 of 2006 is for additional evidence.
5. In as much as R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 is pending ever since from 30/7/2004 and later I.A.No.16 of 2006 and I.A.No.22 of 2008 are pending and in view of the fact the learned Appellate Authority namely Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul has adjourned these matters to 13/4/2009, this Court as a fair, prudent and equitable option directs the Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul being an Appellate Authority to dispose of R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 and I.A.Nos.16 of 2006 and 22 of 2008 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail, to prevent aberration of justice.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms, without costs.
mvs.
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2. The Sub-Assistant Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to watch and report