B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this application the First additional District Judge, Chittoor sought for extension of time by six months to dispose of the appeal, A. S. No. 98 of 2001, pending on his file by stating that the appellant in the appeal Mr. Mangasamudram Narasimha reddy changed his Counsel on the last date of adjournment i. e. , on 25. 7. 2002 and the counsel for the appellant having addressed the arguments, filed LA. No. 276 of 2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive two documents i. e. , certified copy of the plaint in o. S. 279/83 filed by the vendor of the respondent, and the notice issued by the daughter to his father, Mr. M. Narasimha reddy seeking partition of the properties held by her mother who died intestate and the said LA. is pending. Since the appellant changed his Counsel on the verge of the expiry of time, by order dated 8. 11. 2002, i directed not only the Counsel but also the appellant to be present before this Court. Today both of them appeared before this Court and filed certified copies of the docket orders along with other orders. I understand that the suit schedule property stood in the name of late Lakshmamma wife of Narasimha Reddy, the defendant in the present suit, O. S. No. 26 of 1996 and the appellant in A. S. No. 98/2001. After her death, their daughter, Vanajakshi, sought for partition of the property, since her mother died intestate, from her father. Thereafter, she also filed O. S. No. 279/83 seeking partition of the property and the same was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed directing partition of the properties between the parties. At this stage, vanajakshi sold some of the items of the suit schedule property to Mr. Krishna Reddy and he filed the present suit O. S. No. 26/96 against Narasimha Reddy father of vanajakshi restraining him from interfering with his possession and that the suit was decreed by the Junior Civil Judge, chittoor without reference to the preliminary decree passed by the Civil Court in O. S. No. 279 of 1983. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree Mr. Narasimha Reddy carried the matter in appeal, A. S. No. 98 of 2001, to district Court. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree Mr. Narasimha Reddy carried the matter in appeal, A. S. No. 98 of 2001, to district Court. Along with the appeal he filed I. A. No. 313 of 2001 seeking injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction. At the time of arguments the Counsel seem to have submitted that Mr. Krishna Reddy is trying to alienate the properties. In those circumstances initially the First Additional district Judge by his order dated 6-9-2001 in LA. No. 250 of 2001 directed Krishna reddy not to dispose of the property until further orders. Thereafter, on the sought for modification of the order by replacing the words "dispose of " to that of " construct". In other words he wanted injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction over the property and the same was allowed by the Court. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, Mr. Krishna Reddy, filed CRP No. 4579 of 2001. While giving notice before admission, i granted interim suspension by observing that any construction made by Krishna Reddy will be subject to the result of the appeal. Subsequently, by order dated 31. 12. 2001, i dismissed the Revision Petition by observing that since the Court already permitted krishna Reddy to raise constructions if he wishes to do so by taking the risk of demolition of construction in the event of loosing the case, I directed the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. As per the report of the First Additional District Judge, the copy of the order was received on ( 4 ) 2. 2002. I understand that the Presiding officer retired from service on 1. 3. 2002 and thereafter new Presiding Officer took charge on 27. 6. 2002. On that day when the case came up for hearing both the parties reported no instructions and the matter was adjourned to 5-7-2002. On that day and again on 19-7-2002 both the parties reported not ready. Ultimately on 25. 7. 2002 when the matter came up for hearing Mr. Narasimha Reddy changed his Counsel. The new Counsel having addressed the arguments on the main case filed LA. No. 276 of 2002 to receive the plaint and the suit notice issued by the vendor of Mr. Ultimately on 25. 7. 2002 when the matter came up for hearing Mr. Narasimha Reddy changed his Counsel. The new Counsel having addressed the arguments on the main case filed LA. No. 276 of 2002 to receive the plaint and the suit notice issued by the vendor of Mr. Krishna Reddy seeking partition of the properties. This application is filed only to bring to the notice of that Court that the Junior Civil judge decreed the suit without reference to the partition suit. The learned Judge would have directed the respondent to address arguments then and there, since those documents relate to the suit filed by his vendor. In the alternative, if he wanted to hear him on merits of the application filed by the appellant in the appeal, he would have adjourned the hearing in the main case. But the learned Judge heard the arguments for counter in LA. Assuming that the procedure followed by the Additional district Judge is in order nothing prevented him to hear the arguments on the LA. on the next date of hearing i. e. , on 30-7-2002 and he would have pronounced the orders both on the LA. as well as on the appeal on merits. But the District Judge went on adjourning the matter. Ultimately, the respondent seemed to have filed written arguments on 3-8-2002. The docket order dated 6-8-2002 is very interesting. "respondent filed written arguments on 2-8-2002 in receive. Appellant argued. I. A. 276 of 2002 pending. This appeal shall be disposed off within six months as per crp 4579 of 2001 dated 31-12-2001. Date of receipt of order: 4-2-2002. Date of expiry; 4-8-2002. Call No. on 21-8-2002". 4. Since arguments were completed before expiry of the time, nothing prevented the learned Judge to pass orders within a reasonable time. But he adopted a novel method by adjourning the case from 6-8-2002 to 21-8-2002 and addressed a letter to this Court on 2. 8. 2002 seeking extension of time by six months to dispose of the matter. I am really astonished to see why the Judicial Officer wants six months more time to pass orders having heard the argument before the time limit fixed by the court. Be that as it may, on the ground of non-receipt of extension orders from this court the learned Judge went on adjourning the matter up to 11 -9-2002. I am really astonished to see why the Judicial Officer wants six months more time to pass orders having heard the argument before the time limit fixed by the court. Be that as it may, on the ground of non-receipt of extension orders from this court the learned Judge went on adjourning the matter up to 11 -9-2002. The endorsement on 11-9-2002 is also interesting. "await reply. First respondent filed written arguments. Further arguments of appellant and the respondent s arguments were heard. Judgment reserved". When he was adjourning the case all these days, on the ground that extension orders were not received, it is not known what necessiated him to hear arguments on that day. Be that as it may, he did not pronounce the judgment. Once again on 10-10-2002 he opened the matter suo motu for further arguments and posted the matter to 8-11-2002. On 8-11-2002 from the docket it is apparent that the Presiding Officer seemed to be on O. D. and the matter was adjourned to 3-12-2002. On 3-12-2002 the officer availed Optional holiday. It is seen from the docket orders that the respondent filed written arguments on 3-8-2002 and in fact the learned judge heard the arguments of both the parties to the appeal on 25-7-2002 and he made an endorsement to that effect on the docket. But the learned Judge went on adjourning the case for sometime on the ground that he has addressed a letter to the high Court seeking extension of time and no orders were received by him. Having suddenly changed his mind and heard the matter on 11-9-2002 re-opened the matter on 10. 10. 2002. Thereafter he was on other duty. ( 5 ) THE above narrations of facts show that there is abdication of judicial function on the part of this officer. The time fixed for deciding the case is approximate but not specific. The Court is always bound to pass orders within a reasonable time after hearing in the case is over. Having heard the arguments in the main case on 25. 7. 2002 had the officer heard the arguments in the la. on that day itself and this being an appeal filed against the judgment granting injunction restraining Mr. Narasimha Reddy, there would have been sufficient time left to the Judge to dispose of the matter before the expiry of time. Having heard the arguments in the main case on 25. 7. 2002 had the officer heard the arguments in the la. on that day itself and this being an appeal filed against the judgment granting injunction restraining Mr. Narasimha Reddy, there would have been sufficient time left to the Judge to dispose of the matter before the expiry of time. At any rate the Counsel for the respondent filed written arguments on 3-8-2002. If he could not complete the judgment by 4-8-2002, he would have pronounced the judgment in one week or so. But he simply slept over the matter by addressing a letter to the High Court seeking extension of time for further six months in a matter to pronounce Judgment. In fact he enjoyed that period from 6-8-2002 till this day by postponing the matter on one ground or the other without pronouncing the judgment. He reheard the matter on 11. 9. 2002 and re-opened the matter for further hearing on 10-10-2002 and thereafter he did not find time to pass orders in the matter all these days where the High Court specifically fixed time to decide the matter. If he is on leave or O. D. on 8. 11. 2002, the case would have been adjourned to be short date. But, he posted the matter for judgment after one month thereafter. On that day he was availing optional Holiday and the matter was adjourned to 27. 12. 2002. ( 6 ) UNDER Order 41 Rule 30 of C. P. C. the Appellate Court, after hearing the arguments, is expected to pronounce orders at once or on a future date after giving notice to the parties or their pleaders. Though specific time was not fixed in the Civil procedure Code, the Appellate Judge is expected to pronounce the orders at the earliest possible time. He could not sit over the case indefinitely without delivering judgment. For various reasons, the learned judge heard the arguments for the first time on 25. 7. 2002, and went on hearing the appeal now and then when he found time and did not pronounce the orders. Thus the conduct of this officer is highly reprehensible and it cannot receive the appreciation of this Court. It is learnt that the officer is on training at judicial Academy and will be joining duty on 23-12-2002 in his station. 2002, and went on hearing the appeal now and then when he found time and did not pronounce the orders. Thus the conduct of this officer is highly reprehensible and it cannot receive the appreciation of this Court. It is learnt that the officer is on training at judicial Academy and will be joining duty on 23-12-2002 in his station. The Officer shall dispose of the appeal, A. S. No. 98 of 2001 on or before 27-12- 2002 positively and report compliance to this Court. ( 7 ) THE Registrar, Judicial shall inform the operative portion of this order to the first Addl. District Judge, Chittoor by fax message immediately directing him to pronounce orders by 27-12-2002 positively and report compliance to this Court. ( 8 ) PLACE this order before the honourable Chief Justice so that a decision can be taken by the administrative committee where such type of serious lapses on the part of the Judicial Officer belonging to superior services cannot be allowed to recur and to take action accordingly.