The revision petition was dismissed in limine by an order of even date, for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are discussed below. 2. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2009 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) on Miscellaneous Application no. 530 of 2009 in First Appeal no. 146 of 2008. The order reads as under: “File taken up today. Prayer made in the civil miscellaneous application is for stay of the impugned order which is under challenge in the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that while disposing off the complaint has directed the appellant/opposite parties to return the registration certificate and route permit of the truck bearing registration no. HR 58 A 3097 to the complainant coupled with the compensation amount and cost of litigation. It appears that complainant has been harassed intentionally by not returning the RC and route permit of the vehicle, because the duplicate copy of the same can be obtained from the concerned office. Since no step has been taken in this regard by the appellant, we find no justification in granting the stay of the impugned order. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. Adjourned to 19.10.2010 for the date already fixed”. 3. Thus, the revision petition is directed against an interlocutory order of the State Commission. More important, the petitioner has not been able to show any irreparable prejudice caused to it because of this order during nearly 2 ½ years since the revision petition was filed on 04.09.2009 nor has there been any attempt so far by the petitioner to apprise this Commission of any impediment to the progress of the First Appeal since the date (19.10.2009) to which the case was adjourned by the State Commission in the first instance. Instead, of pursuing the matter with the State Commission for final disposal of its First Appeal, the petitioner has thus engaged in a totally unnecessary litigation before this Commission. Such revision petitions tend to clog up the process of disposal of revision petitions before this Commission, in which the need is more genuine and urgent. This practice is, therefore, be deprecated. Hence, the above-mentioned order. 4. The State Commission is, however, requested to dispose of the appeals in question expeditiously. | 
