Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9248 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6689 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Devi And Another Respondent :- Sheeshram Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Babhru Vahan Singh,Dhananjay Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Plaintiff respondent filed Original Suit No. 717 of 2012 for specific performance against the defendant petitioner. In the said suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved, which has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 2019 has been preferred, which has been allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the money which was extended to the plaintiff by the defendant was not returned in time and the agreement executed between the parties for execution of sale deed could not be carried out. He further contended that despite the fact that defendant having been present at the office of Sub Registrar for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff never turned up. 4. The trial court on the basis of documents adduced by the parties recorded a finding that the defendant was present in the office of Sub Registrar, but the plaintiff never turned up. The application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected as no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff respondent. On the contrary, appellate court allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff on the ground that prima facie case was made out in favour of plaintiff and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. 5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of material on record, I find that no interference is required with the order passed by the appellate court as far as order of status quo having been passed in regard to suit property as there is claim and counter claim from both the sides as to their appearance before the office of Sub Registrar for execution of sale deed. There is no denial to the fact that parties were ready to execute the sale deed. Once such a finding has been returned by the appellate court, no interference is required as to the order of status quo. 6. Writ petition is misconceived and dismissed, accordingly. 7. After dismissal of writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a direction may be issued for early disposal of Original Suit No. 717 of 2012. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:- "We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District- Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited. For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost." 9. Recently, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267 has held that Constitution Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. The Court further held that issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending. Relevant para 47.3 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder :- "Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;" 10. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court as well as Division Bench judgments of this Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) and Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief, as prayed for. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad