IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6013 and 6014 of 2009 Between: S. Subba Raju. ….. PETITIONER AND Vellampalli Gopal and others. .....RESPONDENTS. COMMON ORDER: Both the civil revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed aggrieved by the non-disposal of I.A.Nos.1114 and 1113 of 2005 in O.S.No.889 of 2003 respectively, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. It appears, the petitioner in both the revisions filed I.A.No.1114 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants to restore the possession over the plaint schedule property to the petitioner/plaintiff, who was forcibly evicted on 13.07.2005 during subsistence of the injunction order passed in I.A.No.1226 of 2003 dated 18.08.2003. He also filed I.A.No.1113 of 2005 seeking to order detention of the respondents in civil prison as well as attaching the plaint schedule property belonging to the respondents/defendants, who forcibly evicted the petitioner/plaintiff on 13.07.2005 by breaking open the locks in his absence and in gross violation of the temporary injunction order dated 18.08.2003. According to the petitioner, though the said I.As were filed in the year 2005, till date, they are not being disposed of. Under those circumstances, by an order, dated 15.12.2009, this Court directed the Registry to obtain explanation from the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, who in turn, addressed a letter dated 22.12.2009 to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, stating as under: “I.A.No.1113 of 2005 in O.S.No.889 of 2003 was heard and posted for orders on 05.10.2009. The docket order, dated 05.10.2009 in I.A.No.1113 of 2005 shows, the matter is suo motu reopened to hear on both sides on legal aspects and posted to 09.10.2009. The docket order dated 09.10.2009 reveals that heard both the counsel and posted for orders to 19.10.2009. The docket order dated 19.10.2009 shows, the orders in I.A.No.949 of 2009 in O.S.No.1186 of 2003 was pronounced and there was no time to give dictation and posted to 29.10.2009 for orders. The docket order dated 29.10.2009 reveals that judgment in O.S.No.694 of 2007 was pronounced and no time to give dictation and posted for orders to 04.11.2009. The docket order dated 04.11.2009 shows, since the matter in I.A.No.1114 of 2005 was reopened to send the document Ex.R1 i.e., guarantee deed dated 21.05.2005 (crucial document) this matter is reopened. Having no other go, I reopened the matter in I.A.No.1113 of 2005 suo motu, as it is not good to pass orders without signature of the then Presiding Officer in Ex.R1 document. Soon after reopening the matter, I directed the office to send the documents to my learned Predecessor, by name Smt G. Neelima, for obtaining signatures. Accordingly, the office sent the document to my learned Predecessor in Office on 20.11.2009. The said document is not yet received so far. I further submit that, since both I.As are coming simultaneously, and with the sole intention to dispose of them simultaneously, I did not dispose of I.A.No.1113 of 2005. There are no laches on my part to dispose of the said I.A.No.1113 of 2005. I further submit that the document is still awaited. Accordingly, it is submitted for favour of information.” Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the file has been returned by the previous Presiding Officer and received by the Court below. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.1114 and 1113 of 2005 in O.S.No.889 of 2003, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed of. No costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date:25.01.2010 Note: Dispatch this order by day after tomorrow. (Bo) sj