HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.R.P.Nos.235, 236, 599, 600 and 601 of 2010 25th February, 2010 Between :- Prabhath Steels, a firm, Carrying on business in Iron and Cement Rep. by its Parnter B.Bharatha Saradhi And another .. Petitioners And Sannidi Srinivasulu .. Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.R.P.Nos.235, 236, 599, 600 and 601 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 3. C.R.P.No.235/2010 is filed as against an order made in E.A.No.28/2008 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. C.R.P.No.236/2010 is filed as against an order made in E.A.No.4/2010 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Likewise, C.R.P.No.599/2010 is filed as against an order made in C.F.R.No.520/2010 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. C.R.P.No.600/2010 is filed as against an order made in C.F.R.No.521/2010 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. C.R.P.No.601/2010 is filed as against an order made in C.F.R.No.523/2010 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 4. In the orders which had been challenged in C.R.P.Nos.599, 600 and 601/2010, the learned III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal observed as hereunder:- “Though the order of Hon’ble High Court in Crl.R.P.No.236/2010 was passed on 29-1-2010 granting stay for two weeks in E.P.No.1/2008, but the said order was received in this Court on 30-1-2010 and by that time the delivery was recorded and E.P. was closed. Hence, this petition is not maintainable and hence, rejected.” 5. As already aforesaid, being aggrieved of the said orders made while rejecting three applications, C.R.P.No.599/2010, C.R.P.No.600/10 and C.R.P.No.601/2010 respectively, had been filed. The reliefs prayed for are to reopen the matter, to set-aside the order and also to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner. It is needless to say that in the light of the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge, inasmuch as, the stage at which these applications had been taken into consideration, this Court does not see any illegality or legal infirmity in the said orders. 6. No doubt, in C.R.P.No.235/2010 the order made in E.A.No.28/2008 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 had been challenged. Likewise, the order made in E.A.No.4/2010 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 had been challenged in C.R.P.No.236/2010. Several grounds had been pointed out and elaborate submissions had been made. In the light of the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the advancement of the matter is either unjust or illegal. No doubt, certain submissions were made relating to want of notice. In the light of the nature of the orders which had been made in E.A.No.28/2008 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 and also E.A.No.4/2010 in E.P.No.1/2008 in O.S.No.1/2004 on the file of the III-Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, this Court is satisfied especially in the light of the conduct of the parties and also the order made in W.P. No.10318/2009. This Court does not find any illegality warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, all these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 25th February, 2010 NOTE: C.C. in one week (B/o.smr)