HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7050 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent is dispensed with. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of S.C.C. Suit No.2/2006 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich. 4. Having considered the aforesaid and extracts of the order-sheets, which have been brought on record, it indicates that the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2016 by means of Writ Petition No.1882 (M/S) of 2016, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court had expedited the suit and directed the trial Court to decide the same within a period of one and a half year. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order was placed before the Court concerned, however, the despite the said order, almost eight years have lapsed and the suit has not yet been decided solely on account of non-cooperation of the parties, who has moved several applications one after another and in order to stalled the proceedings. 6. Be that as it may, since there is already a direction for deciding the suit within a period of one and a half year vide order dated 01.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.1882 (M/S) of 2016, this Court is not inclined to pass Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nandita Bharti Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vishnu Kumar Sahu Thru. His Guardian And Wife Smt. Ramvati Sahu .....Petitioner(s) Nanhe Lal Lodhi .....Respondent(s) any further orders in this regard, however, the trial Court should be cautious in noting and complying the orders passed by the High Court. 7. Once there was a direction to complete the hearing/trial of the suit within a period of one and a half year and the manner in which the dates have been fixed by the trial Court as evident from the extracts of the order-sheets, it does not indicate or reflect well for the trial Court regarding compliance of the order. 8. In this view, the petition is disposed of with direction to the trial Court concerned to ensure that the earlier order is given due effect and any attempt by any of the party to misuse the liberty should be viewed seriously. Any adjournment by any of the party should be occasioned with costs which are more realistic keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in this regard in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another, (2010) 8 SCC 1. 9. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. December 8, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 7050 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench