[2025:RJ-JP:41395] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16666/2024 1. Umesh Joshi S/o Late Sh. Ramkaran Joshi, Aged About 75 Years, R/o G-7-A, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.). 302001. 2. Sudha Joshi W/o Sh. Umesh Joshi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o G-7-A, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302001. ----Petitioners Versus 1. K.K. Associates, Through Proprietor Khemraj Khoval S/o Rajendra Kumar Saini, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 698, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Presently Tenant At - Shreesham (1st And 2nd Floor) 107-108, Amrapali Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Himanshu Joshi S/o Sh. Umesh Joshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o G-7-A, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Joshi for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. When the matter was listed on 04.11.2024, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted time to file an affidavit that no eviction petition filed prior to the month of April 2024 by a senior citizen is pending consideration before the subject Rent Tribunal. List the matter on 11.11.2024 as prayed.” 2. After a lapse of 11 months, no such affidavit has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 15(5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Therefore, he prays that the hearing of the Original Application No.147/2024 may be expedited. [2025:RJ-JP:41395] (2 of 3) [CW-16666/2024] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. From a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the present eviction petition was filed in 2024, and the said petition is pending at the initial stage. 6. 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;" 7. Further, this Court is in respectful agreement with the judgment of the High Court of Madras in S. Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal3, which re-iterated the principle of law laid down in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) where it was held as under: "12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered." 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 2 2024 INSC 150 3 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674 [2025:RJ-JP:41395] (3 of 3) [CW-16666/2024] 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the pending eviction petition within a time-bound manner. The Court concerned 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 within a reasonable period of time; however, it is expected that the learned Trial Court will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. 10. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /28