IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.116 of 2025 Decided on: 01.04.2025 M/s Surgineeds, Proprietorship ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldevi Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents- State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) A prayer has been made in this petition to pass direction to learned trial Court to expedite/decide Civil Suit No.8-I- 2015, preferably within two months from today. 2. There is no averment or allegation in the petition that learned trial Court is not proceeding with the case for some unjustifiable reasons. It is also not the case of the petitioner that unnecessary adjournments are being granted. 3. The record produced along with the petition reveals that the plaintiff himself was examining his evidence till 14.02.2024. Thereafter, the case was listed for the evidence of 2 defendants and the defendants came up with an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of Code of Civil Procedure. It is further revealed that thereafter the pleadings were directed to be completed from time to time by learned trial Court in the application under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC. Thus, it cannot be said that the delay in final disposal of the suit is being caused on account of any intentional omission of the Court. Further, it also cannot be ignored that the trial Courts have huge pendency of cases before them and in this view of the matter also directions cannot be issued to pick and choose a particular case. The Courts are to maintain their dockets. Needless to say all the Courts are required to decide the matter expeditiously. 3. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 01, 2025 (vt)