1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Girdhari Tiwari V/s. District & Sessions Judge, Bharatur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9125/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: July 16, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. H.V. Nandwana ) Mr. Deendayal Sharma ) for the Petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 25.05.2010 and 07.06.2010 passed by the District Judge, Bharatpur. By the former order, the District Judge has directed the learned trial Court to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. However, as the said order was passed ex-parte, the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the said order. But, vide order dated 07.06.2010, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, the present petition before this Court. Mr. H.V. Nandwana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the District Judge does not have the power to direct that a case be decided expeditiously. The said power is vested only in the High Court. Therefore, the 2 application moved by the defendant, Municipal Council, was not even maintainable. Moreover, as pointed out by the petitioner, in his application before the learned District Judge, he does not have a son, aged about 22 years. There is no evidence to show that notice was duly served upon the petitioner, yet an ex-parte order has been passed. Therefore, the order dated 25.05.2010 is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. Without appreciating the facts, the District Judge should not have passed the impugned order dated 25.05.2010. Without appreciating the fact that notice was not served properly upon the petitioner, vide order dated 07.06.2010, the learned District Judge has illegally dismissed his application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order dated 25.05.2010 clearly shows that according to the learned District Judge, the notice was allegedly served upon the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was not available at his residence, the process server tried to have the notice served upon the petitioner's son. But the petitioner's son refused to take the said notice. Since, the son did not accept the notice, the process server had affixed the notice. Therefore, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that notice has deemed to be served upon the petitioner. However, once the petitioner has raised the said contention that there is no evidence to show that the notice was duly served upon him or his son, the learned Judge should have examined 3 this contention. However, a bare perusal of the order dated 07.06.2010 clearly reveals that the learned Judge has not entered into this controversy and has not examined whether the notice was duly served or not. Moreover, once the contention was raised that the application filed by the respondent was not even maintainable, the learned Judge should have given cogent reasons for dismissing the said contention. However, the order dated 07.06.2010 clearly reveals that the learned District Judge has not given any cogent reason for non-acceptance of the said contention. Therefore, neither the order dated 25.05.2010, nor the order dated 07.06.2010 are sustainable. Hence, both the orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside. However, considering the fact that the case has been pending since 2007, this Court does direct the learned trial Court to decide the case within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. With these observations, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-