[2025:RJ-JP:46938] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17791/2025 1. Gautam Babu son of Shri Nanda Ji, aged about 49 Years, resident of Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 2. Rakesh Agarwal son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, resident of Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 3. Girraj Prasad son of Shri Kalyan Chandra Ji, resident of Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 4. Radhey Shyam son of Shri Daulatram, resident of Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 5. Abdul Rashid son of Shri Noor Mohammad, resident of Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Durgesh Sharma son of Shri Gokul Narayan Sharma, aged about 35 Years, resident of House No.3-R-9, Talwandi, Kota (Raj.). 2. Smt. Anita Sharma Wife of Shri Pooranmal, resident of Near Puliya Sanjay Nagar, Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 3. Murlidhar son of Shri Trilok Chandra, resident of Village Ukalda, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 4. Smt. Santosh Wife of Shri Murlidhar, resident of Village Ukalda, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). 5. Vinod Kumar Sharma son of Shri Pooranmal Ji Sharma, resident of Sanjay Nagar, Sultanpur, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 20/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for expeditious disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 123/2022 titled 'Gautam Babu Vs. Durgesh Sharma' pertaining to the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). [2025:RJ-JP:46938] (2 of 3) [CW-17791/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents, despite an operative interim order dated 13.05.2011 to maintain status quo, have executed a sale deed dated 15.10.2023 in favour of respondent-Smt. Anita Sharma regarding which an application for disobedience and breach of injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC was filed in the year 2022 and the same has not been decided even after three years, therefore, a direction may kindly be issued to the learned court below to decide the application No.123/2022 expeditiously, within a period of six (6) months or as early as possible. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. From a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was filed in 2022, and at present the same is pending at the stage of arguments. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra1 while relying upon the constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P.2, has deprecated the practice of the Courts issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to decide the matter within a timeline, the relevant extract of para 47.3 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) is reproduced as under: “47.3. 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;" 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 2 2024 INSC 150 [2025:RJ-JP:46938] (3 of 3) [CW-17791/2025] 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the pending disobedience petition within a time-bound manner. 7. But at the same time, the learned Trial Court is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within a reasonable period of time; while doing so, it is also expected from the learned Trial Court that they will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present civil writ petition is disposed of. 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /6