Judgment :- 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to direct the lower Court to expedite the trial in O.S.Nos.508 of 2011 and 26 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff in C.R.P.No.241 of 2013 filed O.S.No.508 of 2011 and sought for declaration in respect of some properties against the revision petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff in C.R.P.No.242 of 2013 filed another suit in O.S.No.26 of 2011 for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5. 4. Though it is stated in the grounds of Civil Revision Petitions that the lower Court is granting time to the defendants in the suits for filing written statement without due regard to the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that one of the defendants by name K.R. Lakshmikandam in O.S.No.508 of 2011 alone remained ex-parte and all others filed written statement. 5. The revision petition is for a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 6. The suit is of the year 2011. No special reason is given to seek direction to dispose of the suit, which was filed in the year 2011. If at all, the revision petitioner is of the view that the suit has to be disposed of at the earliest, he should have filed proper application before the Trial Court under Rule 28(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for advancement of hearing. Therefore, I do not find any reason to issue the direction as sought for in the Civil Revision Petitions. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.