-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 233 of 2024 Gimpex Private Limited, a company duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Gimpex House, 282, Lingi Chetty Street, PO & PS- Gorge Town, Chennai, represented through its Deputy General Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwala, S/o Late M.P. Agarwala, age about 64 years, having its branch office at 11/1, Sarat Bose Road, PO & PS- Bhawanipur, District- Kolkata. ..... … Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, through its Chief Executive officer, having its office at Administrative Building, PO & PS- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate. For the OP : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate ------ 04/ 27.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer is made for a direction upon the learned court to expedite the proceedings in connection with Execution Case No.27 of 2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said execution case is still pending since 2022, as such, a direction may kindly be issued to the learned court for expeditious disposal of the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986, filed by the opposite party no.1 is still pending in the same court. He submits that that both the petitions can be disposed of simultaneously. 5. From the records of the CMP, it is not transpired that as to whose action, the said case is being delayed. Further it is not disclosed that the learned court is not taking the efforts to dispose of the case. It is for the parties to purse the said case diligently to decide the same at an early date. 6. In para-47 of the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the -2- case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Constitutional Courts in a routine way, may not pass any order to the trial court to decide the suit within the stipulated time. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending. 7. In view of the above, no positive order can be passed for early disposal of the said case. It is for the parties to take efforts for early disposal of the case, so that the learned court may be able to dispose of the case at the earliest. 8. As such, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to both the sides to pursue the said execution case diligently before the learned Court and if the proper assistance is there, the learned court may decide the same as expeditiously. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/-