Judgment : This application is filed seeking recalling of order dated 24-6-2013 in CRPMP No.3412/2013 in C.R.P.Nos.1099 and 1100 of 2012, to the extent of the observations made against the applicant herein. The applicant was working as the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal at the relevant time. The facts leading to the filing of this application are briefly stated as under : The revision petitioners filed O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. They have also filed I.A.Nos.410/2011 in O.S.No.52/2011 and I.A.No.411/2011 in O.S.No.53/2011 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. By separate orders dated 2-9-2011, the lower Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the defendants filed C.M.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Adilabad. By separate orders dated 28-1-2012, the learned Principal District Judge allowed both the C.M.As. and set-aside orders of injunction. Assailing the said orders, the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.Nos.1099 and 1100/2012. This Court, by order dated 6-3-2012, while declining to interfere with the orders of the lower appellate Court, directed transfer of O.S.No.118/1999, filed by the defendants, from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal to be tried along with O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2011. This Court also further directed the lower Court to dispose of all the three suits together within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the revision petitions. It was further directed that the lower Court shall fix a schedule for conducting trial on a day-to-day basis and that both the parties shall co-operate with the lower Court in disposing of the suits. Without disposing of the suits as directed by this Court, the applicant addressed letter dated 4-6-2012 to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for passing appropriate orders for disposal of the suits. The said letter was registered as CRPMP No.4612/2012 and placed before this Court. In his letter, the applicant stated that order dated 6-3-2012 of this Court was received by him on 10-4-2012 and that after closure of the Court for vacation, the Court was reopened on 1-6-2012 and that both the parties have filed the following I.As : 1. I.A.No.117/12 in O.S.No.52/2011 for restitution of suit plot. 2. In his letter, the applicant stated that order dated 6-3-2012 of this Court was received by him on 10-4-2012 and that after closure of the Court for vacation, the Court was reopened on 1-6-2012 and that both the parties have filed the following I.As : 1. I.A.No.117/12 in O.S.No.52/2011 for restitution of suit plot. 2. I.A.No.128/2012 in O.S.No.52/2011 for appointment of Commissioner. 3. I.A.No.130/2012 in O.S.No.52/2011 for amendment of plaint. 4. I.A.No.116/2012 in O.S.No.53/2011 for restitution of suit plot. In his letter, the applicant apprehended that there is a likelihood of filing of revisions/appeals against the orders that may be passed in the said I.As. and therefore it is not possible to dispose of the suits within three months as directed by this Court. By order dated 3-8-2012, this Court, while observing that the learned Senior Civil Judge has not even disclosed the time required by him for disposal of the suits, extended the time by three months while cautioning him that this Court will not be inclined to extend the time further. The Registry was directed to “forthwith” communicate the said order to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. The applicant has again addressed another letter dated 22-4-2013 to the Registrar (Judicial) seeking further extension of six months for disposal of the suits. This letter was registered as CRPMP No.3412/2013 and placed before this Court. After examining the contents of the said letter, this Court has passed a detailed order on 24-6-2013 declining to extend the time further. As the said order is self-speaking one, I do not intend to refer to its contents in detail. It will suffice to observe that this Court was thoroughly dissatisfied with the attitude of the applicant in not disposing of the suits even for six months as this Court did not perceive the two grounds raised by him in his letter for failing to proceed with and dispose of the suits, as the real impediments for disposal of the suits, at least, within the extended time granted by this Court. This Court has also observed that the applicant has slept over the issue for more than 5½ months and leisurely addressed the letter dated 22-4-2013 to the High Court. As this Court felt that the High Court, on administrative side, needs to deal with the applicant, a direction was issued to the Registrar to place the file on administrative side. This Court has also observed that the applicant has slept over the issue for more than 5½ months and leisurely addressed the letter dated 22-4-2013 to the High Court. As this Court felt that the High Court, on administrative side, needs to deal with the applicant, a direction was issued to the Registrar to place the file on administrative side. As noted above, the present application is filed by the applicant for recalling the said order to the extent of the observations made therein against him. In the affidavit filed in support of the present application, the applicant has stated that there was a long delay of more than 5½ months in his receiving the order extending the time for disposal of the suits and that when he insisted on the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs to proceed with the suits, he refused to co-operate with the Court by stating that C.R.P.No.449/2013 was filed by his client against order dated 19-12-2012 passed in I.A.No.130/2012 in O.S.No.52/2011 for amendment of the plaint and that unless the said revision petition was disposed of, the plaintiffs do not intend to proceed with the suits. The applicant, therefore, pleaded that he could not dispose of the suits for the reasons beyond his control and that non-disposal of the suits as directed by this Court is neither wilful nor due to negligence on his part. I have heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant and perused the record. In order to test the veracity of the contents of the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the present application, this Court has called for a report from the Registry as to the date on which order dated 3-8-2012 was received by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. He has accordingly submitted a report stating that the said order was received by the said Court on 28-1-2013. Thus, the plea of the applicant that the order of this Court dated 3-8-2012 was received almost 5½ months after its passing, is found correct. However, in order to verify whether the applicant has made earnest efforts for disposal of the suits, I have summoned the proceedings sheets in both the suits in question. Thus, the plea of the applicant that the order of this Court dated 3-8-2012 was received almost 5½ months after its passing, is found correct. However, in order to verify whether the applicant has made earnest efforts for disposal of the suits, I have summoned the proceedings sheets in both the suits in question. A perusal of the endorsements in the proceedings sheets leave this Court in no doubt that the applicant has made a casual approach in dealing with the cases despite the specific directions issued by this Court for disposal of the suits in a time bound manner. He has failed to show any sense of urgency from 10-4-2012, the date on which the applicant received order dated 6-3-2012 passed by this Court disposing of the revision petitions. The suits were adjourned from 5-3-2012 to 20-4-2012. The applicant has not made any effort to advance the hearing of the suits from 20-4-2012 after receiving the order dated 10-4-2012. He has not fixed day-to-day schedule for hearing of the cases as directed by this Court at least on 20-4-2012. The applicant has adjourned the cases from 20-4-2012 to 23-4-2012 and from that date the cases were adjourned to 4-6-2012, evidently due to the impending summer vacation. On 4-6-2012, the Court has adjourned the suits to 12-6-2012 on the ground of pendency of the I.As. and simultaneously addressed letter to the High Court “for passing appropriate orders”, giving reasons for non-disposal of the suits. On the said application, this Court has passed an order on 3-8-2012 extending time by three months. Since the time the applicant has addressed letter to this Court on 4-6-2012, the suits were adjourned on ten occasions on the ground that the I.As. were pending and on four occasions on the ground that the Presiding Officer was on leave, in a span of six months i.e., till 19-12-2012. On 19-12-2012, the applicant dismissed one I.A. and adjourned the case twice. He has dismissed another I.A. on 22-4-2013. The docket endorsement show that the lower Court has received order dated 3-8-2012 of this Court extending the time, on 28-1-2013. On 19-12-2012, the applicant dismissed one I.A. and adjourned the case twice. He has dismissed another I.A. on 22-4-2013. The docket endorsement show that the lower Court has received order dated 3-8-2012 of this Court extending the time, on 28-1-2013. While there may be justification for the applicant for not disposing of the suits after 28-1-2013 in view of filing of C.R.P.No.449/2013 against order dismissing the I.A.No.130/2012 in O.S.No.52/2011, I do not find any justifiable reason for the applicant not to have disposed of the suits, or at least made an endeavour to dispose of the suits between 4-6-2012 and 19-12-2012. As noted supra, the suits were being adjourned from time to time either on the ground of pendency of the I.As., or due to the Presiding Officer being on leave. The learned Senior Counsel has laid emphasis on the fact that there was huge delay in receipt of the order of this Court dated 3-8-2012 extending the time for disposal of the suits by the lower Court. In my opinion, that hardly constitutes any ground for the applicant’s failure to dispose of the suits. Whether the applicant had knowledge of the extension of time sought by him or not, he is bound to make all-out efforts to ensure that the suits are disposed of as early as possible, if not within the extended time of three months. The applicant is not expected to await receipt of the extension orders from this Court. The docket proceedings reflected that no sense of urgency, whatsoever, was displayed by the applicant in adhering to the time limit stipulated by this Court, both as originally fixed and as extended later, for disposal of the suits. On the contrary, no reasons whatsoever were given by the applicant for not disposing of the I.As. except stating that the counsel were not co-operating. The alleged non-cooperation of the counsel for disposal of the I.As. or the suits, would hardly constitute any ground for the applicant to sit over the suits despite the peremptory orders of this Court directing disposal of the suits within the stipulated time. When judicial orders prescribing time limit for disposal of cases are passed by superior courts, it is the bounden duty of the lower Courts to adhere to the same and comply with the directions unless circumstances existed beyond their control for non-compliance of the same. When judicial orders prescribing time limit for disposal of cases are passed by superior courts, it is the bounden duty of the lower Courts to adhere to the same and comply with the directions unless circumstances existed beyond their control for non-compliance of the same. The applicant failed to explain any such circumstances for this Court to revise its opinion expressed in the detailed order dated 24-6-2013. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed.