Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.17 of 2008 in A.S.No.8 of 2008, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.453 of 2006 seeking the following relief. TAMIL (ii) The matterwas contested. (iii) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the respondent/plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2008 and also filed the I.A.No.17 of 2000 seeking status quo and the same was granted. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of status quo, the present revision has been filed by the defendants on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) The suit itself was in abuse of the process of law throwing to winds the embargo as contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the DRT Act for short), DRT Act. In fact, during the suit stage itself I.A. also was filed for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed. However, the Court proceeded with the suit on merits and ultimately dismissed it and now the appeal is pending. While so, the appellate Court adding fuel to the fire granted status-quo, which affects the interest of the revision petitioners/defendants/Bank. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order of status-quo passed by the appellate Court. 4. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners/defendants, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would develop his arguements, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: Absolutely there is no merit in this revision. Pending appeal if no status-quo is ordered, then there would be change of circumstance that would complicate the issue. In fact, the appellate Court ordered satus-quo only in the interest of justice and to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings, warranting no interference by this Court in revision. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of status-quo passed by the appellate Court warrants interference? 6. In fact, the appellate Court ordered satus-quo only in the interest of justice and to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings, warranting no interference by this Court in revision. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of status-quo passed by the appellate Court warrants interference? 6. At the out set itself I would like to point out that the suit itself was dismissed, in favour of the defendants, who are the revision petitioners herein, and as against which, the plaintiff filed the appeal and the appellate Court granted status-quo. 7. It is the contention of the revision petitioners/defendants that the suit itself was not maintainable. No doubt, in the I.A. filed during the suit stage, seeking rejection of the plaint, the Court passed the order dismissing the same. As against which no revision was filed immediately. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that presently such a revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it has not yet been numbered. After the dismissal of the said I.A., the trial Court dismissed the suit itself and now the appeal is pending and in such a case, I do not think that this Court has to entertain such a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order passed in the I.A for rejection of the plaint. But the right of the revision petitioners/defendants before the appellate Court is always there to press their stand in support of the conclusion, namely, the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court. I do not know whether any cross-appeal has been filed or not by the revision petitioners herein. 8. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the maxim - Rerum suarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter – Everyone is the manager and disposer of his own matters. 9. In such a case it is for the revision petitioners/defendants to decide the course of action before the appellate Court. However, I would like to fix a time frame for disposal of the appeal A.S.No.8 of 2008 itself, which shall be dispose of within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. 9. In such a case it is for the revision petitioners/defendants to decide the course of action before the appellate Court. However, I would like to fix a time frame for disposal of the appeal A.S.No.8 of 2008 itself, which shall be dispose of within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would make an extempore submission that the disposal of this revision should not come in the way of the revision petitioners raising all legal pleas, which are permissible as per law before the appellate authority. 11. Whereupon the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that it is open for the revision petitioners to raise all pleas if at all those are maintainable as per law before the appellate Court. 12. Recording the submission on both sides, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.