IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3252 of 2013 BETWEEN Sd. Ismail ... PETITIONER AND Sd. Mahaboob Peera and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. PADMIDI ADITHYA The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved and complains of pendency of stay petition pending first appeal preferred against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur in O.S.No.7 of 2007 dated 03.04.2010.
3. Petitioner herein is the sole defendant in the suit and aggrieved by the preliminary decree aforesaid, he has preferred A.S.No. of 2012 before the Principal District Judge, Ongole, along with an application, I.A.No.131 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay of 606 days in presentation of appeal and as such the said application is coming up for hearing before the lower appellate Court and is pending since 2012. Petitioner also filed another application, I.A.No.2861 of 2012, seeking stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary decree aforesaid and the said stay application is also stated to be pending from 17.12.2012. The non-consideration of stay application is complained of in the present revision petition.
4. It is apparent from the docket proceedings produced along with the revision that both the said applications i.e. application seeking condonation of delay as well as application seeking stay are coming up together before the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole.
Though the respondents herein are appearing in the said application, no counters, as yet, are filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of non-consideration of both the said applications, the trial Court is taking up proceedings with regard to passing of final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and as such, there is urgency in hearing and disposal of both the said applications by the learned Principal District Judge.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, it is apparent that on account of pendency of the application seeking condonation of delay, the application seeking stay, filed by the petitioner, could not be taken up. Though counter affidavits are not filed by the respondents, in the said applications, I do not see any reason as to why the said applications remained pending with the lower appellate Court without passing appropriate orders therein. Since the petitioner is likely to be affected by the passage of final decree, in the interregnum, it is imperative that the learned Principal District Judge takes up and decides the said applications expeditiously. As both the learned counsel have no objection for disposal of the said applications within a fixed time frame, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole to hear and decide both the said interlocutory applications simultaneously and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The civil revision petition is disposed of As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 22, 2014 DSK