Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get strike off the I.A.No.20 of 2009 in I.A.No.11 of 2009 in A.S.No.82 of 2008, pending before the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court which was dismissed, as against which the appeal was filed by the respondent/appellant. The appellant also filed I.A.No.11 of 2009 in the appeal seeking the following relief: "TAMIL" Whereupon the lower Court passed the order dated 11.03.2009 thus: "Respondent called absent. Set exparte. Petition is allowed." Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A.No.20 of 2009 seeking the following relief: and now, the enquiry is pending in that application. Pending enquiry, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner inviting the attention of this Court to the fact that subsequently, at the instance of the very same revision petitioner, I.A.No.16 of 2009 was filed with the following prayer: “TAMIL” and that was allowed as per order dated 10.06.2009. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that absolutely there was no injunction in the exparte order in I.A.No.11 of 2009 so as to restrain the revision petitioner from doing anything except the fact that the auction relating to slaughter house should not be proceeded with. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, no auction was conducted in violation of the order. Hence, the proceedings in I.A.NO.20 of 2009 is a misconceived one warranting quashment at the hands of the Court. 6. Whereas the respondent, who appeared as the Party in Person, would vehemently argue that the proceedings in I.A.No.20 of 2009 has to be proceeded with and it should its logical end and filing this Civil Revision Petition is a premature one and this Court cannot quash the contempt application, when it is pending before the appellate Court. 7. At this juncture, I would like to point out that undoubtedly and indisputably, I.A.No.20 of 2009 is pending before the lower appellate Court. 7. At this juncture, I would like to point out that undoubtedly and indisputably, I.A.No.20 of 2009 is pending before the lower appellate Court. When such is the position, there is no knowing of the fact as to why the revision petitioner should rush up to this Court for getting quashment of the I.A. There is nothing to indicate that the revision petitioner himself filed any application or made any attempt to get quashed the I.A.No.20 of 2009 before the same Court. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Revisional Court cannot be invoked, when the matter is pending and that be when opportunity is available for the revision petitioner to seek remedy before the lower Court itself. 8. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.