HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P No:2999 OF 2010 Dated: 16.7.2010 Between: G. Sobhana Rao ..Petitioner And Smt. T. Shantha Ratnam .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2999 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed seeking a direction to the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of I.A.No.1344 of 2010 in A.S.No.567 of 2007 and other pending applications. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.2361 of 2004 was filed against the defendant for recovery of money to a tune of Rs.1,92,244/- with interest thereon. The Court below partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- charging interest at 12% p.a., from the date of execution of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, with future interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till realization. Hence, the defendant carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.567 of 2007. The lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal for default. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed I.A.No.1344 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal for default. The said petitions are kept pending. Hence, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-defendant. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The present revision has been filed seeking a direction to the lower appellate Court to dispose of the applications pending in the above appeal. It is for the Courts to look into the matter as per its roster or workload and in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that his movables were already attached by the executing Court and therefore, the applications pending in the appeal may be directed to be disposed of at an early date. When the appeal is filed by the defendant, he must be more diligent in prosecuting that matter. Therefore, for laches on the part of the parties, no burden can be added to the Courts below by way of issuing directions. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain this revision petition. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 16th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2999 OF 2010 16.07.2010