1 17 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.70/2008. Chetan & Ors. Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sanchore & Ors. Date of Order :: 22nd January 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. A.K. Acharya, for the petitioners. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendants in a suit that is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sanchore with the prayer that the trial court be directed to take necessary steps to dispose of the suit at an early date, wherefor a time limit may also be fixed by this Court. The petitioners have prayed that,- “(i)- by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent no.1 learned trial court may kindly be directed to take necessary steps to dispose of the suit in question No. 21/2001 and for which a time limit may also be fixed as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper. (ii)- by an appropriate order or directions the learned District Judge concerned under whom administrative control the learned trial court is situated may kindly be directed to take necessary steps for early disposal of the suit in question in case the trial court is remained vacant without posting of any Presiding Officer. 2 (iii)- Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and fit be passed in favour of the Petitioner. (iv)- Costs of this writ petition may kindly ordered to be pay.” The petitioners have attempted to submit the difficulties allegedly faced by them in relation to their rights under the mining lease issued by the Mining Department because of the pendency of the said suit. On being questioned if the defendants-petitioners made any such prayer for expeditious proceedings and early disposal of the suit before the learned trial court with reference to the difficulties allegedly faced by them, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such prayer was made by way of oral submissions. There is nothing on record to find any specific cause to entertain this writ petition nor there appears any reason to issue any such direction to the learned trial court so as to take up a particular suit in priority over and above other cases pending consideration in the said court. In any case, the petitioners have not made any proper application to the trial court and it cannot be assumed that if the petitioners would have made any such prayer to the trial court, the same would not have been given due consideration by the court concerned. 3 Noticeable it is that this writ petition with the nature of reliefs aforesaid was filed as back as on 13.08.2007 and the was lying in defect and the petitioners have taken steps for removing the defects only on 03.01.2008. Be that as it may, without any further comment in the matter, this Court is of opinion that there appears no reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/