THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3121 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff, is directed against the docket order dated 24.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.535 of 2002 in I.A.No.484 of 1999 in O.S.No.118 of 1999 by the Junior Civil judge, Tuni. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction. In the said suit he filed I.A.No.484 of 1999 for temporary injunction and the same was granted by the Court. Accordingly, notices were served on the respondents/defendants and the matter was posted to 8.07.1999. On that day it was adjourned to 25.08.1999 directing that the injunction shall continue till that day. While so, I.A.S.R.No.2343 of 1999 was filed alleging that on 29.06.1999, she got the paddy removed, which was thrashed and kept in the field, to her house. When the paddy was under transport to her house, the first respondent along with the other respondents caused obstruction illegally and unlawfully, and by force got the paddy, which is of 11 bags of 75 kgs, each removed into her house and thus they committed an offence of decoity punishable under Section 395 IPC. Therefore, necessary sanction may be accorded under Section 195 Cr.P.C for taking action under Section 188 IPC. But the entire affidavit is silent on what date the injunction was obtained by the petitioner and when the notices were served on the respondents. If the petitioner establishes that after service of injunction order the respondents have violated the same, she can proceed against the respondents under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. But on returning the I.A.S.R., the petitioner has not represented the same, but only in the year 2002, the I.A.S.R has been represented with an application in I.A.S.R.No.2154 of 2002 on 12.06.2002 to condone the delay of 1038 days in representing I.A.S.R.No.2343 of 1999. Since then it was adjourned from time to time. Meanwhile the entire trial has been closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage the petitioner pressed for appropriate orders in I.A.S.R.No.2154 of 2002 and she has successfully protracted the litigation for 8 long years. Therefore, the impugned I.A. with a delay of 1038 days in representing the I.A.S.R., lacks bona fides and the same has been rightly dismissed by the lower Court. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 13th August, 2010 Js.