IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8036 of 2009 Between: Smt. Kota Chakrapani Devi, W/o. K S BABU, R/o. H.No.9-57/5/1 Sai Colony, Risala Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 10. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2 Smt. Natti laxmi W/o. Natti Kumar, R/o. Plot No.36, Madhura Nagar, Risala Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad-10 3 Natti Kumar, S/o.N.Venkata Rao, R/o. Plot No.36, Madhura Nagar, Risala Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad-10 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or direction one or more in the nature of Mandamus by directing the First Respondent to dispose the Execution Petition No.45/2006 in OS 75/2002 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge; City Civil Court at Secunderabad within a period of two months. Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.:. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.8036 of 2009 Order: The petitioner as party-in-person filed this writ petition seeking directions to the 1st respondent, namely the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, to dispose of E.P. No. 45 of 2006 in O.S. No.75 of 2002 within a period of two months. The case has a chequered history. The petitioner states that she filed suit O.S. NO. 75 of 2002 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of money and obtained decree, and also obtained an order of attachment of the house property of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in I.A.No. 1155 of 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 45 of 2006. As against certain orders therein, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed C.C.C.A. No. 323 of 2006, and this Court by order dated 04.01.2007 granted stay of the E.P. proceedings subject to their paying half of the decretal amount within a period of six weeks. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without complying with the conditional order, filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5576 of 2007, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2007 dismissed the same. Suppressing the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner states that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed E.A. requesting the Court to stay the proceedings and deposited an amount of Rs.5,45,000/- towards the suit amount and Rs.39,872/-. The Executing Court dismissed the said application, as the amount deposited was less than the decretal amount. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed C.C.C.A. M.P. No. 323 of 2007, and this Court by orders dated 05.07.2007 dismissed the same. While so, the petitioner states that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application in E.A. No. 67 of 2007 stating that the Execution Court had no territorial jurisdiction. The said application was dismissed. Questioning the said order, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed C.R.P. No. 5129 of 2007, and this Court while disposing of the C.R.P. granted liberty to the petitioner to take steps to get the decree transferred to the court having jurisdiction. Based on the order in the C.R.P., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed application in E.A. No. 22 of 2008. The Executing Court while entertaining the said application, directed the petitioner to get clarification. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 1933 of 2008, and this Court dismissed the same. Based on that order, the Executing Court closed the E.P. Thereafter, the petitioner after obtaining necessary material to show that the Executing Court had jurisdiction to deal with the E.P., filed review application in C.M.P. No. 3626 of 2008 in C.R.P. No. 1933 of 2008, and the said application was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No. 19 of 2009 praying the court to re-open the matter. The court below while ordering notice on the application, adjourned the matter to 04.06.2009. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are dragging on the matter by filing one application or another, thereby preventing her from enjoying the fruits of the decree, respondent No.1 be directed to dispose of the E.P. itself expeditiously and within a particular time frame. Heard the petitioner. As can be seen from the pleadings of the petitioner, the E.P. filed by her was earlier closed by the Executing Court. Now to re-open the same, she filed the present application. The Executing Court while entertaining the application, ordered notice and adjourned the matter to 04.06.2009. That is the normal procedure, which the Courts adopt when applications are filed seeking reliefs. May be respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are filing one application or the other and dragging on the matter, but that cannot be a ground, for the Court to straight away dismiss the applications filed by them. As a matter of practice, the Court below has ordered notice on the application and adjourned the matter to a future date. If the petitioner has any urgency in the matter, the appropriate remedy for her is to take out notice of the application on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and move an advancement petition or out of order application, requesting the Court to hear the matter on out of turn basis and dispose of the expeditiously, but certainly this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot regulate the docket of the Executing Court, which may have its own priorities. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court below for redressal of her grievance, if any. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 20.04.2009 VGB/KSR