HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.1934 of 2010 Dated 28-09-2010 Between: K.Vekata Prasad ……..Petitioner Vs. J.Laxman Rao and others. ………Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.1934 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in passing appropriate orders in I.A.No.171 of 2010 in O.S.No.97 of 2003 filed for return of the unmarked document viz., Memorandum of Understanding, dated 18-10-2002. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein are the defendants in O.S.No.97 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. During the course of evidence, the petitioner filed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18-10-2002 and the same was not marked in the evidence. Subsequently, the suit was decreed and against which, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.C.C.A.No.23 of 2010 before this Court and the same is pending consideration. Meanwhile, the petitioner along with R-4 filed the above interlocutory application before the Court below for return of the unmarked document dated 18-10-2002 on the ground that the said document has to be filed before this Court in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed the petition on 09-04-2010, the court below has not yet passed any orders on his application and the same is still pending. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the record, it is clear that the application itself is pending consideration before the Court below. Further, the petitioner without availing any alternative remedy available to him, straight away approached this Court and filed the present revision petition. Normally, in the cases of this nature, the petitioner can seek expeditious orders by filing an appropriate application before the Court below. Hence, the revision petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ September 28, 2010 KVR