ORDER:

The main grievance of the revision petitioners is that the final decree petition pending for a decade has not been taken up for enquiry.

2. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants. Though the respondent was not served with notice, in view of the nature of the relief sought for, the revision petition is taken up for disposal.

3. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the inaction in disposing of the application in I.A.No.959 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed for passing final decree in spite of the observations of the Supreme Court in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna1.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there is inordinate delay in disposing petition for final decree before several Courts, though there is no need even to file a separate application to pass final decree since passing of final decree after the preliminary decree is continuation of the same suit. He further submitted that recently, the Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan