THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4480 of 2009 Date: 18-9-2009 Between 1. Smt. Kolli Samrajyamma and another … Petitioners/ Respondents 1 and 2/ Plaintiffs and 1. Circar Enterprises (Hotel Anupama), Vijayawada, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr. Peddu Balarama Krishnaiah … Respondent No.1/ Appellant Defendant No.1 2. The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad and another … Respondents 2 and 3/ Respondents 3 and 4/ Defendants 2 and 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4480 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of the appeal A.S.No.281 of 2007 pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district, which was preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 13-11-2007, in O.S.No.541 of 2007, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the present revision is filed. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2, respondent No.1 is defendant No.1/appellant and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3/respsondents 3 and 4 in the suit/appeal suit before the trial Court/lower appellate Court, respectively. 4. The only grievance in this revision is that the appeal filed by defendant No.1 is not being disposed of by the lower appellate Court. The dispute is with regard to granting of bar licence in the premises, which allegedly belonging to the plaintiffs. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is aged about 70 years and she does not want to have any bar licence being issued in the premises belonging to her and plaintiff No.2. 6. The trial Court had decreed the suit granting permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from obtaining any licence in his name or his nominees or agents to any person to run away bar or liquor business in the plaint schedule property from defendant No.1 in violation of terms of lease deed. The appeal is of the year 2007. 7. Therefore, having regard to the age of plaintiff No.1, the lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal with utmost expedition, if necessary on priority basis. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the above direction. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 18th September, 2009. Ak