IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2289 OF 2009 Between: K.Keshava Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND A.Satyanarayana .... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2289 OF 2009 O R D E R: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2009 in I.A.No.458 of 2009 in O.S.No.874 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2520 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from making alleged unauthorised construction on the suit schedule property. The said application was disposed of by order dated 20.02.2008, permitting the defendant to make constructions in his own site after restoring the compound wall and also the gate to the building of the plaintiff within 15 days. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.276 of 2009 with a prayer to detain the defendant in civil prison for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2008 in I.A.No.2520 of 2007. It was alleged in the said application that the defendant failed to restore the compound wall and the gate to the building of the plaintiff within 15 days as directed in I.A.No.2520 of 2007. While I.A.No.276 of 2009 is pending, the defendant filed I.A.No.458 of 2008 with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to proceed with the trial without taking further adjournments. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.458 of 2009 it was pleaded by the defendant that though the issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial and the Court was insisting the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence, the plaintiff was trying to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other taking advantage of the ad-interim injunction granted in his favour. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order 27.04.2009 allowed I.A.No.458 of 2009 directing the plaintiff to proceed with the trial on 06.05.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the defendant had disobeyed the order dated 20.02.2008 in I.A.No.2520 of 2007, the Court below ought not to have entertained the application filed by the defendant for expeditious disposal of the suit and therefore, the order under revision being ex- facie illegal is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the suit is coming up for trial and the same was posted to 26.02.2009 for cross examination of PW.1. Having taken a note of the fact that the plaintiff failed to make himself available for cross examination without there being any justifiable reason, the Court below passed the order under revision directing the plaintiff to get on with the trial on the next date of posting i.e., 06.05.2009. It was also made clear by the Court below that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code would be taken up simultaneously with the main suit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Order under revision cannot be held to have suffered from any legal infirmity. Admittedly, the petitioner’s application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code was directed to be heard along with the main suit and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by proceeding with the suit trial so as to dispose of the main suit. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below was of the opinion that it was desirable to dispose of the suit expeditiously and accordingly allowed the defendant’s application directing the plaintiff to proceed with the trial. The said discretion exercised by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Apparently, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is attempting to drag on the suit proceedings and this revision petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 20.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd