THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6089 of 2009 19.2.2010 Between: Visrantamma Sundar Raj, W/o.Narasaiah Sundar Raj And another …Petitioners and National Chemical Laboratory, represented by its Controller of Administration, Dr.Homi Bhabha Road, Pune – 411 008 and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6089 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. It is for recovery of money. The third defendant, who is none other than daughter-in-law of petitioners, received summons but did not file written statement within the statutory period. Therefore, petitioners filed I.A.No.320 of 2009. They prayed to close the evidence of defendants and list the matter for judgment. Alleging that the Court below did not pass any order on the application, they filed revision being CRP No.3973 of 2009. This Court disposed of the same observing that the trial Court may pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.320 of 2009. Now, it is alleged by petitioners that without disposing of I.A.No.320 of 2009, the Court below is insisting upon plaintiffs to proceed with trial. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. On number of occasions, this Court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not intended to regulate day-to- day work or roster of the Courts subordinate to High Court. Secondly, there is no invincible rule of law – either procedural or substantive – which bars a Civil Court from proceeding with the trial even while interlocutory applications are pending. There are instances where the interlocutory applications themselves are taken up for consideration along with main suit. Therefore, this Court has already passed orders in CRP No.3973 of 2009 and they hold good. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) February 19, 2010. YS