JUDGMENT SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - Plaintiff in the suit filed the above Revision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking expeditious disposal of I.A.No.782 of 2022 in O.S.No.551 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. 2. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.551 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri seeking permanent injunction against the defendant in the suit. Plaint was presented on 22/8/2022 and the same was registered on 23/8/2022. Along with the plaint, I.A.No.782 of 2022 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. The said interlocutory application was heard by the presiding officer on 23/8/2022 and adjourned the matter to 24/8/2022. On 24/8/2022, urgent notice was ordered to the respondent, and it was adjourned to 8/9/2022. 3. On 8/9/2022, vakalath was filed on behalf of defendant, in office, and hence the matter was adjourned to 28/9/2022. On 28/9/2022, counter was not filed and at request it was adjourned to 1/12/2022. Thus, interlocutory application was adjourned beyond 60 days. 4. Since, I.A. was adjourned to 1/12/2022 from 28/9/2022, petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.970 of 2022 in I.A.No.782 of 2022 under rule 109 (2) of Civil Rules Practice to advance I.A.No.782 of 2022 from 1/12/2022. The said I.A.No.970 of 2022 was filed on 12/10/2022. 5. I.A.No.970 of 2022 was adjourned for filing of counter to 17/10/2022. Counter was filed on 17/10/2022. I.A. was adjourned to 27/10/2022 for enquiry. Again, matter was adjourned from 27/10/2022 to 1/12/2022 and from 1/12/2022 to 29/12/2022. 6. Seeking expeditious disposal of I.A.No.782 of 2022, the above revision is filed. Since, no order in the suit is under challenge, notice to respondent is dispensed with. 7. The suit itself is filed for permanent injunction and I.A is filed for temporary (ad-interim) injunction. The Trial Court initially ordered urgent notice, however, when vakalat was filed on 8/9/2022, trial Court could have insisted to file counter so that I.A would be decided as expeditiously as possible. 8. Justice delayed is justice denied is an established principle of law. 9. An Injunction is a Judicial process, whereby, a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. 8. Justice delayed is justice denied is an established principle of law. 9. An Injunction is a Judicial process, whereby, a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an Order of the Court addressed to a particular person/persons be it corporate or individual that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act or orders to carry out a certain act. 10. Objective of ad-interim/exparte/temporary injunction is preservation of property in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the courts are adjudicated. It is a relief granted to the party to prevent it from any injury. It is only provisional in nature. It does not conclude rights of the parties. Operation of order will be in force till hearing of interlocutory application. 11. If an injunction application (interlocutory application) is kept pending for considerable time without disposing of the same, the very purpose of filing of interlocutory application is being frustrated or defeated. As stated supra the primary objective of ad-interim or exparte injunction is to maintain and preserve the existing state of things at the time of institution of proceedings and to prevent any change until the final determination of the application or the suit. It is a relief granted to the party to prevent it from any injury. 12. As seen from the docket proceedings in the case on hand, I.A. 782 of 2022 was filed for grant of ad interim/exparte injunction. Court below ordered urgent notice and later after filing of vakalat, adjourned I.A. from 28/9/2022 to 1/12/2022 and so on. Thus, by virtue of long adjournment, the very purpose of filing of I.A. is frustrated or defeated. 13. The irony of petitioner doesn 't stop at there. When the petitioner filed I.A.No.970 of 2022 seeking to advance I.A.No.782 of 2022, in spite of filing counter, I.A.No.970 of 2022 is being adjourned from time to time. In fact, as observed supra counter was filed on 17/10/2022. 14. Delay in disposal of the matter is a serious concern and expeditious disposal of cases is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, as observed supra counter was filed on 17/10/2022. 14. Delay in disposal of the matter is a serious concern and expeditious disposal of cases is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When the Court below failed to perform its obligation, this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can issue such direction to dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that in the 4th Century B.C. Greek philosopher Socrates said that there are four qualities required in a Judge, to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially. Dispensation of justice is an attribute of God. Blessed is those on whom that Godly assignment has befallen. Still blessed are those who acquit themselves of such assignment with pride, dignity and honour. 16. The qualities of a good Judge include patience, wisdom, courage, firmness, alertness, incorruptibility and the gifts of sympathy and insight. In a democracy, a judge is accorded great respect by the state as well as its citizens. Judge is not only permitted to assert his/her freedom and impartiality but also expected to use all his forensic skill to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrariness. Though such a state of affairs makes it easy for the judge to exercise his/her functions, he/she still requires many qualities to perform his duties effectively. 17. Justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, it is to be remembered that absolute substantial justice without quality would be disastrous. The elements of judiciousness, fairness, equality and compassion cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of expeditious disposal. But justice must be imparted and justice cannot be hurried to be buried. 18. This Court, in fact, constrained to make the above observation since this Court come across number of civil revision petitions filed in day in and day out complaining non disposal of interlocutory applications specially injunction applications. In some cases, where ad-interim/exparte injunction is granted, the petitioner/s taking advantage of injunction is procrastinating the proceedings so have the benefit of exparte injunction. The other cases, like one, in this case on hand, where urgent notice is ordered, respondent/s is taking time without filing counter and thus the Court is not able to dispose of the applications. In some cases, where ad-interim/exparte injunction is granted, the petitioner/s taking advantage of injunction is procrastinating the proceedings so have the benefit of exparte injunction. The other cases, like one, in this case on hand, where urgent notice is ordered, respondent/s is taking time without filing counter and thus the Court is not able to dispose of the applications. In some cases, the learned presiding officers are being confused by using the words temporary injunction even when ad interim/exparte injunctions are granted. One should not forget the difference between ad-interim injunction and temporary injunction. The difference between an ad-interim injunction and temporary injunction is that in the former, injunction will be granted initially in the petition while ordering notice to operate immediately continue till the disposal of the petition. In the latter, injunction granted earlier continues till disposal of the suit. 19. In fact, the Hon 'ble Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi; 2011 8 SCC 249 the Hon 'ble Apex Court observed as follows: "4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system ... 32. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned amicus curiae, has written an extremely useful, informative and unusual book, Justice, Courts and Delays. This book deals with the main causes of delay in administration of justice. He also suggested some effective remedial measures. We would briefly deal with the aspects of delay in disposal of civil cases and some remedial measures and suggestions to improve the situation. According to our considered view, if these suggestions are implemented in proper perspective, then the present justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly improve to a great extent. ... 33. According to the learned author, 90% of our court time and resources are consumed in attending to uncalled for litigation, which is created only because our current procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the wrong-does. Those involved receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a grated number than those involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, infact, lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system. .... 34 ..... Those involved receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a grated number than those involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, infact, lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system. .... 34 ..... in our legal system, uncalled for litigations gets encouragement because our courts do not imposte realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs ..... unless, the cours, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentive, uncalled for litigation will continue to accure ... 38 ..... unfortunately, our courts are flooded with these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong doers in our system. .... 40. while granting ad interim-injunction or stay order the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the petitioner that he will have to pay mense profits at the market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim application and the suit. .... 46. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting exparte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the courts is to give a short notice and, in some cases, even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunctions orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or respondents and in case the court has to grant ex parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record the in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. .... 47. if an expearte injunction is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court. .... 48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. .... 48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of exparte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining exparte injunction order or stay orders may not find encouragement. " 20. Thus, keeping in view the expression of the Hon 'ble Apex Court: a) whenever the Courts ordered urgent notice in interlocutory applications seeking ad-interim or exparte interim injunctions, if necessary, permit the petitioners to take out notice, by way of registered post or courier service, in person as contemplated under Order 5 Rule 9 or through an advocate commissioner. b) Once urgent notice is ordered Court shall not adjourn the I.A. beyond fifteen days. c) Once notice is served on respondent/respondents, the respondent/respondents shall file counter within seven days thereafter. However, basing on the exigency the court may extend the time not more than two times; each time not more than seven days by recording reasons. In such a state of affairs the Court shall insist undertaking of the respondent and on any reasonable terms to mitigate the problem of petitioner. d) If the respondent/respondents, in spite of service of notice, fails to file counter, the Court in the interest of justice shall pass necessary orders till filing of the counter, keeping in view, the urgency of the matter. e) However, at any rate court shall not adjourn the I.A. beyond time mentioned above to file counter. If counter is not filed within the time mentioned supra, the Court can proceed to dispose of the matter with the material available on record, forfeiting the right to file counter. Courts below shall consider provisions of Order VIII Rule 10, Order XVII Rule 2 and 3 read with Sec 141 of Code of Civil Procedure. f) Courts shall keep in mind the time fixed under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC to dispose of Injunction Applications even where urgent notice is ordered. Courts below shall consider provisions of Order VIII Rule 10, Order XVII Rule 2 and 3 read with Sec 141 of Code of Civil Procedure. f) Courts shall keep in mind the time fixed under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC to dispose of Injunction Applications even where urgent notice is ordered. g) While passing exprate orders, court shall keep in mind the material and the circumstances and pass orders judiciously strictly in accordance with law and also direct the petitioners to file affidavit or deposit security as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC (Andhra Pradesh State Amendment) h) Whenever an interlocutory petition is filed under Rule 109(2) of Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 57 of Civil Rules of Practice provides for advance notice. If advance notice is given as contemplated under Rule 57 of Civil Rules of Practice, the application shall be considered on the next working day ensuring intimation or notice to all opposite parties. In other cases, the advancement applications shall be disposed of within 7 days subject to service of notice petition on all the respondents. i) The observations made above are only illustrative and Courts shall follow the same basing on facts of each case. j) The guidelines referred to supra should be complied in letter and spirit by all the stake holders i.e. the bar and bench to avoid procrastination of proceedings. k) The Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate this order to all the presiding officers. 21. In this background of the affairs, trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.782 of 2022 in O.S.No.551 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. 22. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.