THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.960 OF 1993 Dated. 09-12-2010 Between: P.Venkatesham …Appellant Vs. B.Lingam and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.960 OF 1993 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.57 of 1982. The suit was filed for specific performance and on 11-08-1986 the suit was dismissed for default as there was no representation even though it was a part-heard suit. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.560 of 1986 seeking for restoration of the suit and the same dismissed and thereafter the matter was carried in Appeal i.e., AAO 936 of 1987, which was also dismissed and the matter was further carried to LPA being LPA No.60 of 1989 and the said LPA was also dismissed. As against the dismissal of LPA, the plaintiffs who are the appellants herein carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme court and the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.2061 of 1990 dated 28-01-1991 passed the following order:- “The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, but we record the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that his client would refund Rs.42,000/- inclusive of payment made to SBI against the liability of the respondent. To avoid controversy with regard to the factum of payment, we direct the respondent to deposit the said amount of Rs.42,000/-within three months from today, in the trial court, with liberty reserved to the appellant to withdraw the same.” The above order of the Supreme Court clearly puts an end to the rival contentions of the parties and it is virtually a direction to refund the advance money as sale consideration of Rs.42,000/- received by the defendants and thereby stating that the relief of specific performance need not be provided with. The respondents are said to have complied with the order and deposited the money into the court on 02-04-1991. Evidently, the present appeal has been filed after passing of the order by the Supreme Court in the above SLP. One fails to understand as to how anybody can go beyond the order of the Supreme Court which has put an end to the litigation by ordering the refund of the money received by the owner of the property. The present appeal even if it is to be held to be maintainable under law, is an absolute abuse of the process of law and cannot be further continued which has been continued for the last 17 years. Therefore, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 09-12-2010 TSNR