-IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.13/2026 Date of Decision: 08th January, 2025. Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Leela Devi and Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred seeking following relief:- (a) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the learned District Judge-II, Solan, Himachal Pradesh be directed to decide the Civil Appeal No.96/2019 titled as “Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs. Leela Devi and Ors.” pending for final hearing on 02.01.2026 with no further adjournment at the earliest in time bound manner in view of the above submissions, in the interest of justice. 2. The issue of fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023, titled High Court Bar Association, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Allahabad Vs. State of UP and Ors (2024 (2) SCR 946 : 2024 INSC 150). The relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-ofturn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out- of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned 3 Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” 3. Few order sheets for the perusal of this Court have been placed on record. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the order sheets, especially of dated 12.01.2024, 18.10.2024 and 08.04.2025, it is evident that the counsel for the parties prayed time for arguments. 4. In view of aforesaid position of law and factual matrix referred to supra, I see no reason to set timelines in the case at hand, therefore, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 08th January, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat/KS)