SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.2707 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Anshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the learned Trial Court to hear the stay application/interim relief application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC expeditiously and adjudicate the stay application/interim relief application within some reasonable time. (ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to the Civil Suit No.26 of 2019, Mohlad Singh & others vs. State of Uttarakhand through Collector Roshnabad, District Haridwar to maintain the status quo in property in dispute till the disposal of the stay application in aforesaid Civil Suit.” 5. Of-late, the Apex Court in the case of ‘Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra’ (Criminal Appeal No.4758 of 2024 decided on 25.11.2024 [2024 INSC 899]) has held that Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritizing the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal authority, the Court finds 2 that the present case does not fall within the category of ‘exceptional circumstances’. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in- limine. 8. Pending application if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.10.2025 AK