HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6840 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. By means of the present petition, the petitioners pray for the following relief which reads as under: "(i) Issue the direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.39, District Barabanki to decide the pending Regular Civil Suit No.284 of 2005 titled as Mohd. Mukhtar vs. Surya Prakash and another, expeditiously and without giving any adjournments, in a given time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." The petitioners who are the defendants in Regular Suit no.284 of 2005 submits that after the exchange of pleadings, the issues were framed on 27.10.2006. Upon an application moved by the plaintiff, a Survey Commission was appointed, however, since then, a large number of dates have been fixed but the survey commission has not been done and stereotyped order sheets are being written indicating non application of mind and in a way, the plaintiffs of the suit are being benefited. The Court had also not applied its judicial mind to the fact that in case, if the survey was not being done, apparently, the order could have been recalled and a new Commissioner should have been appointed, however, no objection to this effect has been noticed by the trial court which has resulted in unnecessary delay of the trial and the suit of the year, 2005 is still at its nascent stage and though the issues were framed in 2006, the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Shukla, Arvind Counsel for Respondent(s) : Surya Prakash Verma And Another .....Petitioner(s) Mohd. Mukhtar .....Respondent(s) plaintiff has yet not filed its examination in chief or other evidence. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, the submission appears to be correct, accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds that it is a fit case for expediting the proceedings and the trial court is also directed to ensure that appropriate orders sheet are brought reflecting what transpired on the date so fixed. If the Survey Commissioner has not responded, the Court always has the power to change such a Survey Commissioner and this cannot be a ground to delay the proceedings indefinitely. Since the issues have been framed in the year 2006, there can be no justification for not proceedings that the evidence irrespective of the inspection through Survey Commissioner which could have been resorted to simultaneously. The trial court take note that such methods which impact and hamper the trial should be deprecated and endeavour be made to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments. An attempt should be made to fix the date in the suit on weekly basis and, in case, if any party chooses to misuse the liberty, appropriate orders be passed imposing heavy costs considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. November 26, 2025 Harshita. A227 No. 6840 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench