[2025:RJ-JP:43794] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16398/2025 1. Smt. Chandrakanta W/o Shri Poonamchand Jain, aged about 74 Years, 2. Shri Manish Jain S/o Shri Poonamchand Jain, aged about 48 Years, Both R/o 653, Maniharan Ka Rasta, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur and presently residing at Plot No. 5, Apex Lane, Indrapuri, Lalkothi, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Meenakshi Jain W/o Shri Arun Kumar Gangwal, aged about 65 Years, R/o 656, Gangwal Bhawan, Manisharan Ka Rasta, Jaipur, Presently R/o 41, Mahavir Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Beena @ Veena Jain W/o Shri Satishchandra Gangwal, aged about 59 Years, R/o 41, Mahavir Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. Shri Anoop Kumar Beriya S/o Shri India Kumar Beriya, aged about 47 Years, R/o Plot No. 24, Vijaybadi, Path No. 2, Dhehar Ka Balaji, Jaipur. 4. Municipal Corporation Jaipur Heritage, through Mayor, Badi Chaupad, Jaipur. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Heritage, Zone Kishanpole, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Sharma with Mr. Bhavya Kala For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, to decide the Civil Suit No.159/2024 titled [2025:RJ-JP:43794] (2 of 3) [CW-16398/2025] "Smt. Chandrakanta Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Jain and Ors." expeditiously. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit is pending before the learned Trial Court for more than one year & six months and presently the matter is at the evidence stage and the same has been repeatedly adjourned. Therefore, he prays that the learned Trial Court may kindly be directed to dispose of the Civil Suit No.159/2024 within a time schedule or within a period of two months. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Although from a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the civil suit was filed in 2024; and is presently pending at the evidence stage. 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 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 2 2024 INSC 150 [2025:RJ-JP:43794] (3 of 3) [CW-16398/2025] 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." 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. 8. The learned Trial Court is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board and to ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within a reasonable period of time; it is also 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 /4 3 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674