ORDER S.V. Bhatt, J. 1. The parties in O.S. No. 53 of 2004 in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, are before this Court in these two revisions. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 53 of 2004 are revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 3651 of 2014. The revision is filed against the order dated 23.09.2014 in I.A. No. 238 of 2014. 2. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 53 of 2004 are revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 4110 of 2014. The revision is directed against the order dated 09.09.2014 in I.A. No. 233 of 2014. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in the suit O.S. No. 53 of 2004. 4. The revisions present meandering instances happening in a simple suit filed for injunction in O.S. No. 260 of 1999. The suit was dismissed for default, resulting in filing of applications for restoration of the suit and revisions on such orders etc. The issue, after a lapse of 15 years from the date of filing of the suit, continues to be illusive at the hands of Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam. 5. At the first instance, O.S. No. 260 of 1999 was filed by revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 4110 of 2014 for the relief of perpetual injunction against respondents. Through order dated 05.08.1999, the Court below granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed C.M.A. No. 41 of 1999 before the Agent to Government, Khammam. As there was delay in considering the prayer of defendants in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1999, they were compelled to file W.P. No. 950 of 1999 in this Court for appropriate interim orders and the parties were directed to maintain status quo as regards possession of plaint schedule properties. 6. O.S. No. 128 of 2000 was filed by revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 3651 of 2014 for the relief of partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property. The Agent to Government, Khammam directed transfer of O.S. No. 128 of 2000 to the Court of the Special Assistant Agent and after transfer, the suit has been numbered as O.S. No. 53 of 2004. On 20.04.2006, O.S. No. 53 of 2004 was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs filed an application I.A. No. 69 of 2006 to set aside the default order and hear the matter on merits. On 20.04.2006, O.S. No. 53 of 2004 was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs filed an application I.A. No. 69 of 2006 to set aside the default order and hear the matter on merits. The application was allowed and grievance against the order was that without notice to the contesting defendants, the order to set aside the default order was passed. The instant order was assailed in C.R.P. No. 4749 of 2006. This Court through order dated 02.01.2007 set aside the order in I.A. No. 69 of 2006 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The further round in the litigation started afresh. The Special Assistant Agent while considering the prayer in I.A. No. 69 of 2006 through order dated 07.10.2009 decreed O.S. No. 53 of 2004. The defendants filed I.A. No. 233 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated 07.10.2009. The same was allowed through order dated 09.09.2014. Thereby, the suit was restored to file. C.R.P. No. 4110 of 2014 is filed by the plaintiffs. 7. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 238 of 2014 for grant of police protection on the basis of the status order dated 16.09.1999 in W.P. No. 950 of 1999. The Court below allowed I.A. No. 238 of 2014 and granted police protection in favour of plaintiffs. Hence, C.R.P. No. 3651 of 2014. 8. Mr. Sarath, learned appearing for defendants, vehemently contends that the Court below committed a serious illegality or irregularity in giving police protection to respondents/plaintiffs in aid of a status order granted on 16.09.1999. The learned counsel further contends that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession and the manner of threat posed by the defendants and the necessity to give police protection to the parties. The order impugned is not a speaking order and is likely to cause prejudice to the defendants and is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for plaintiffs, assails the order in I.A. No. 233 of 2014 on the ground that the application filed by the defendants to set aside the ex parte decree, is illegal and contrary to the normal procedure prescribed for setting aside the ex parte decrees. The application is admittedly filed beyond 30 days and there is no application to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The application is admittedly filed beyond 30 days and there is no application to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. By virtue of the decree for perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' possession of the plaint schedule property is protected and reopening of the suit causes hardship. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order in I.A. No. 233 of 2014 and in fairness Mr. Kowturu Vinay Kumar submits that the rules provide for passing appropriate orders depending upon the contingencies of the cases and places reliance upon Rule 42(C) of the Agency Rules. 10. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would only consider the jurisdictional errors in adjudication by the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it. Now, it is to be considered whether the contentions attract the jurisdiction of this Court. The parties have been agitating for redressal of either a civil dispute or praying for protection in respect of a proprietary right, right from 1999. The inadequacy of approach in deciding the simple suit either for perpetual injunction or partition is writ large in the case on hand. The same need not be attributed to the Court below but contributory factors by the parties are sufficiently present. Be that as it may, once the suit is pending before the Court, the Court is under obligation to dispose of the suit or interlocutory application by following fair and reasonable procedure so that neither party suffers prejudice. In the case on hand, the orders impugned in both the revisions may attract one or the other infirmity. The Mobile Court is governed by the Agency Rules. It is seisin of a civil dispute. It is not fully controlled by the procedural laws of CPC. Therefore, even if these omissions and commissions are present, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, still these grievances do not attract the jurisdiction of this Court. 11. I consider it appropriate to dismiss both the revisions and direct the Agent to Government, Khammam/District Collector to supervise and ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court through this order. 11. I consider it appropriate to dismiss both the revisions and direct the Agent to Government, Khammam/District Collector to supervise and ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court through this order. The Special Assistant Agent is directed to take up trial in O.S. No. 53 of 2014, filed for the relief of perpetual injunction and partition, on day-to-day basis and complete the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the trial is completed within four weeks thereafter, the arguments are heard and the suit is disposed of on merits. If either of the parties do not co-operate with the Mobile Court, the Mobile Court is given liberty to pass appropriate orders and proceed to decide the issue in accordance with law by considering the material available on record, instead of passing cryptic orders which are leading to confusion. The Special Assistant Agent is further directed to submit a report on the compliance of directions issued by this Court to Agent to Government for supervision and further orders. If, for any reason, the Agent to Government believes that the Special Court is unable to comply with the directions issued by this Court, it shall take necessary steps for disposal of the suit within a time frame stipulated by this Court. 12. With the above directions, the revisions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed.