IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.3 0 1 5 OF 2006 Between: R. Hanumanth Rao … Revision Petitioner V/s. K.Subba Rao … Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Sri A. Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CRP.No. 3 0 1 5 OF 2006 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 30-1-2006 passed in EA.No.759 of 2005 in EP.No.50 of 2004 in OS.No.273 of 2003 by the XI Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, dismissing the application filed the petitioner-judgment debtor under Order-21, Rule 59 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for stay of sale of the EP schedule property, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. On 14-7-2006, this Court issued notice before admission and granted interim stay of sale subject to satisfaction of the decree within a period of three weeks and thereafter the matter was directed to be listed after three weeks. 3. On 01-4-2010 the matter was listed and at request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to next week. 4. On 09-4-2010 when the matter was listed, the counsel for the petitioner called absent and again the matter was directed to be listed after one week. 5. Today, i.e., 16-4-2010 when the matter is listed, there is no representation on behalf of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. After obtaining interim stay, it is not known whether the petitioner satisfied the decree within the above stipulated time. However, when the matter had not been listed after three weeks after granting interim stay, the counsel for the petitioner did not evince any kind of interest to report the Registry that the matter has not been listed and that the petitioner has satisfied the decree. But the counsel for the petitioner is silent for all these years. This type of conduct shows that the counsel for the petitioner has no interest to prosecute the matter diligently when the revision has been filed in the year 2006. 6. Under the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 16-04-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3 0 1 5 OF 2006 CIRCULATION ENTRY No.4 4 Date: 16-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43