R. SIVASAKTHI Vs. RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Interlocutory Application filed along with the suit in I.A.No.1 of 2022 for the grant of Interim Injunction is yet to be disposed of and is being adjourned periodically.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the matter is being adjourned for want of Judge in the particular Court and in this regard, this Court cannot offer any opinion, and on account of a large number of vacancies in the District Judiciary, such problems are crepting and it is to be looked into on the administrative side of the High Court of Madras.

(3.) As far as the Interlocutory Applications are concerned, once the Trial Court declined to grant such interim order at the time of entertaining the suit, then the High Court cannot again insist the Trial Court to decide the Interlocutory Applications within the time limit or otherwise. The Court concerned, by exercising the power of discretion, has to regulate its own cases on board, including the Interlocutory Applications, and any direction in this regard would result in unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary which this Court does not prefer to do.