HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4764 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel has filed the copy of the written instructions which are taken on record. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.2 is dispensed with. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Suit No.1727 of 2013, Nageswar Vs. Ashok, which is pending before the respondent No.1 since 18.12.2013. It is urged that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided. Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Suit No.1727 of 2013, Nageswar Vs. Ashok most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Kumar Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Shraddha Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijay Dixit Nageswar Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge Junior Division Court No 24 Distt. Sultanpur And Another .....Respondent(s) unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of four months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Before parting with the case, this Court has noticed certain issues which is reflected from the instructions which have been provided by Shri Shishir Jain in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 08.08.2025. As per the instructions, it was indicated that the parties are not co-operating and the parties are taking too much time and for the aforesaid reasons and many others as reflected from the order-sheets which have been placed alongwith the instructions indicating the cause for pendency. This Court having considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter finds that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empowers the Court to deal with any situation that may arise. It may not be appropriate for the trial court to state that the parties are not co-operating, as this is not enough. Once a Court finds that there is an old matter relating to the year 2013 and more than ten years have lapsed then under what circumstances, can the trial court justify that the pleadings are not complete or the issues have not been framed or the parties are not leading evidence. In case if the Court finds that the pleadings are not being completed despite opportunity, then it has powers to close the opportunity and proceed in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Even otherwise after the amendment in the year 2002 it is not as a matter of right that after the prescribed period the defendant is entitled to file the written statement whenever the defendant so wishes and that too without seeking the leave of the Court. These safeguards have been incorporated with a ford hope that the trial Court will exercise its powers appropriately to curtail the delaying tactics. However, for that the trial Court needs to be more pro active and not a mere spectator to the proceedings. The Apex Court in Reevajeetu Builders and Narain Swami and sons 2 A227 No. 4764 of 2025 and others in Civil Appeal No.6921 of 2009 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.10.2009 and in Vinod Kumar Bajaj (Since Deceased) Vs. Rajendri, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6489 have also noticed that the Courts must impose realistic costs or else the people who have an interest in delaying the proceedings can continue to do so. This Court has observed in many cases that the subordinate courts are granting last opportunities several times which is also an unhealthy practice as by this mechanical exercise, the essence of the word 'last opportunity' looses its significance. It is expected that the courts must be careful and ensure that none of the parties exploit the situation which adds to delays as reflected in the present case, where in a suit relating to the year 2013 the trial court could not frame the issues leave aside leading of evidence and it does not depict a good picture.Trial courts are requested to ensure that they may not become instruments of delay at the hands of unscrupulous litigants. A copy of this order be placed before the District Judge concerned who would mentor the courts to be more sensitive to the situation so they are able to exercise their powers and proceed with the matter on its merits rather than giving dates and opportunities to undeserving litigants without cogent grounds and reasons. August 25, 2025 ank 3 A227 No. 4764 of 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench