M.VENUGOPAL,J. - (1.) THE civil revision petitioner/respondent has preferred this civil revision petition praying this Court for issuance of a direction to the appellate authority, viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumba -konam, to dispose of the pending R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that pendency of R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007 after completion of the arguments on the side of the respondent/appellant and reply by the petitioner/respondent is unwarranted and the pendency of R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007 without any final order being passed thereto causes serious prejudice to the revision petitioner/ respondent and that there is no justifiable or reasonable cause for the delay in disposing of R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007 by the appellate authority, viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and when all submissions and counter submissions have been over, then there is no need to keep the R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007 any further on the file of the learned appellate authority and therefore, he prays for allowing the present civil revision petition in the interest of justice.
(3.) TO avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the respondent on the facts and circumstances projected before this Court. This Court by its order dated 6.4.2009, has directed the registry to obtain the remarks of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, (the appellate authority) through fax as to why R.C.A.No. 8 of 2007 is pending for a long time for passing orders and also the details in regard to the pendency of the same till date and the registry has been directed to receive the remarks and to place the same before this Court on 13.4.2009 and that the registry has placed the remarks of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 8.4.2009.;