IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: October 18, 2011 Sudha Panday and another .. Petitioners Vs. Dina Nath Mishra .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the trial court directing the parties to maintain status quo. The suit was filed on 1.11.2008 and the petitioner (defendant) appeared in the court on 4.11.2008 and filed written statement on 15.1.2009. Reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed on 2.4.2009. Comments of the Presiding Officer have been received. This Court is taking serious note of the fact that the case is lingering on issues for the last three years. First of all after filing of the written statement on 15.1.2009, the court had fixed the case for replication and issues and the miscellaneous application, if any, should have been disposed of in between. Though the court received the file on 24.5.2011, but before adjourning the case he should have taken note of the previous adjournments. It is surprising that he, without looking into earlier orders, continued adjourning the case. This act on the part of the officer is not appreciated. Learned District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is directed to entrust this case to any other court of competent jurisdiction so that further delay in disposal of the case could be avoided. Disposed of accordingly. October 18, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge