[2025:RJ-JP:42150] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15582/2025 Arpita Dangi Wife Of Shri Manish Dangi, Resident Of Purani Tehsil Ki Gali, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rabiya Singh Wife Of Sanjay Hada, Resident Of Jhamku Palace, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Jhalawar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Project Director, Indian National Highway Tribunal Project, Karyanvayan Unit-A, Talwandi, Kota, Rajasthan. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose the civil suit bearing no. 122/2021 expeditiously. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit is pending before the learned Trial Court since 2021 and the evidence of the parties are yet to be recorded. Therefore, he prays that the disposal of the civil suit No.122/2021 may be expedited. [2025:RJ-JP:42150] (2 of 3) [CW-15582/2025] 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 civil suit was filed in 2021, and the said suit is pending at the initial stage of plaintiff's evidence. 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;" 6. 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:42150] (3 of 3) [CW-15582/2025] 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the pending civil suit 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. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 14/Seema