JUDGMENT : Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 05/08/2019 made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.474 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the docket order dated 05/08/2019 made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.474 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. 2. The revision petitioner filed the main suit against the order passed by the first respondent in Pa.Ma.149/2000/A1 and Pa.Ma.181/2000/B1 dated 29.05.2019. In the said suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The said application came up for hearing on 05.08.2019, wherein the learned Judge has ordered notice to the respondents returnable by 05.09.2019. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the operative portion of the order passed by the first respondent on 29.05.2019, which is under challenge before the Court below in the suit, wherein the following order has been passed. “TAMIL” 4. In view of this urgency, as only 15 days time has been given to evict the petitioner, it becomes absolute necessity to decide the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 before the Court below. However, instead of deciding the same, the learned Judge ordered 30 days notice returnable by 05.09.2019, and though the respondents entered appearance, time had been given upto 30.10.2019, to file counter. Thereby, two months time is given, before which if the order impugned before the Court below, passed by the first respondent is implemented, then it will be a case of fait accompli insofar as the order passed by the first respondent which is against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court, as has been prayed for in this revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered the materials placed before this Court. 6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court, as has been prayed for in this revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered the materials placed before this Court. 6. At the outset, since the petitioner has himself approached the Court by filing the Interlocutory Application to get the interim order, the same has to be decided on merits by the Court below and merely because notice has been ordered by the Court below, this kind of revision, that too invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained and if this revision is entertained, what has been not achieved by the petitioner by getting an exparte interim order in the Interlocutory Application, the petitioner would seek for before this Court and that would be an unnecessary interference on the function of the Court below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Civil Revision Petition, as the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. However, since only 15 days time has been given to the petitioner for eviction, and as against the said order, since the petitioner seeks remedy by filing the interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 to seek for injunction, it is for the Court below to take up the I.A., at the earliest and decide the same on merits, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. Once this kind of interim applications are filed, seeking urgent relief of exparte order, and on prima facie if the Court decides to issue notice, short notice could have been issued, and at any rate one month notice should not have been ordered and even thereafter, a further time of two months has been given to the respondents to file counter, thereby, within the period of three months, if the order passed by the first respondent, which is the subject matter before the Court below in the suit, is executed, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the very purpose of filing the application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 would get infructuous. 9. 9. Therefore, in order to balance the same, this Court, while dismissing this revision, gives a direction to the Court below, to advance the hearing of the I.A.No.2 of 2019 and decide the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such decision is made and I.A.No.2 of 2019 is disposed of on merits, within the time frame stipulated above, the status quo, with regard to the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.05.2019 insofar as the possession of the petitioner in the property in question is concerned, as on today, shall be maintained. 10. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.