IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.3174 of 2009 Between: Ashok Damera … Petitioner And Dr.Chitti Jalpath Rao and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.3174 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed against the order of learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad passed in I.A. No.1071 of 2007 in O.P. No.1628 of 2004 on 17.10.2008. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.1071 of 2007 in O.P. No.1628 of 2004 under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the said O.P. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The said application was dismissed holding that there is no proof from the petitioner side, when the minor acquired U.S. citizenship, to arrive at the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the O.P. Assailing the same, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondents have filed O.P. No.1628 of 2004 under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, seeking for declaration, appointment of Guardians and custody of minor boy, Master Chiti Anirudh. During the pendency of the said O.P. the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.1071 of 2007 seeking to dismiss the said O.P. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He also submitted that the Pass Port issued in the name of Chiti Anirudh was issued on 17.05.1996 and the same was expired on 16.05.2006 and the minor boy had become the citizen of America. Therefore, the Court below has no jurisdiction to maintain the said O.P. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that O.P. is of the year of 2004 and only with a view to frustrate the relief sought for in the said O.P. the revision petitioner had filed I.A. No.1071 of 2007 and the same has been rightly dismissed by the Court below on the ground of insufficient material. Assailing the same, the present revision petition has been filed only with a view to delay the matter. She also submitted that the Court below has got jurisdiction to maintain the suit. The undisputed facts are that O.P. No.1628 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners therein, who are paternal grand parents of the minor boy. The said O.P. is at the stage of trial and while so, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.1071 of 2007 that was dismissed holding that though the respondent filed cancellation of Indian citizen of the minor, he has not furnished any details nor the document when the minor obtained U.S. citizenship and cancelled the Indian citizenship. In the absence of required material, it cannot be concluded abruptly that when minor obtained the U.S. citizenship and he is not a citizen of India and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the O.P. The documents that have been filed before the Court below are also filed before this Court and I have perused the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below since the Court below dismissed the said I.A. for want of necessary material. However, for the submission made by both the counsel that the said O.P. is of the year 2004 wherein, the custody of the minor boy is involved and it requires early adjudication, if any further delay is caused the relief sought for in the said O.P. would be frustrated, I am of the view that it is expedient to direct the Court below to dispose of the said O.P. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open for the Court below to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction also along with other issues in the said O.P. Accordingly, with the above direction, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: February 24th, 2010 Note: Furnish certified copy of the order in a week. B/o. LSK