[2025:RJ-JP:44755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9788/2025 1. Smt. Mamta Saxena Wife Of Late Shri Sajnay Karoliwal, Aged About 42 Years, 2. Manshwi Saxena D/o Late Shri Sajnay Karoliwal, Aged About 20 Years, Both R/o 5 Cha 36, Housing Board, Near Jhulelal Mandir, Jaipur And R/o 365/4, Rayji Ka Gher, Chandi Ki Taksal, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ajay Karoliwal Son Of Late Shri Mahesh Narayan Karoliwal, R/o 365/4, Ray Ji Ka Gher, Chandi Ki Taksal, Jaipur. 2. Rajey Karoliwal Son Of Late Shri Mahesh Narayan Karoliwal, R/o 365/4, Ray Ji Ka Gher, Chandi Ki Taksal, Jaipur. 3. Arti Shekhar Wife Of Shri Chandra Shekhar Srivastav D/o Late Shri Mahesh Narayan Karoliwal, R/o 365/4, Ray Ji Ka Gher, Chandi Ki Taksal, Jaipur 302002. 4. Bharti Saxena Wife Of Shri Vipin Saxena D/o Late Shri Mahesh Narayan Karoliwal, R/o 356, Vinoba Nagar, Modal Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Jyoti Saxena Wife Of Shri Sharad Saxena D/o Late Shri Mahesh Narayan Karoliwal, R/o 839, Ramnagar, Shastri Nagar, Behind Of Bank Of Baroda, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akansha Saxena with Ms. Pankaj Solanki For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:44755] (2 of 3) [CW-9788/2025] 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the learned Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the Civil Suit No. 82/2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit has been pending since 2024. Therefore, he prays that the disposal of the Civil Suit No. 82/2024 may kindly be expedited and disposed of on a day to day basis. 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 only in 2024. 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 the 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 2 2024 INSC 150 3 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674 [2025:RJ-JP:44755] (3 of 3) [CW-9788/2025] 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." 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 No. 82/2024 within a time-bound manner. 8. The concerned 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; 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 civil writ petition is disposed of. 10. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/41