S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7567/2009 Prakash Narain Sharma Vs. ADJ No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur and ors. Dated : 20.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Jayant Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Damodar Pd.Shram present in person for the respondents. *** Two applications Nos.9168 dated 23rd February, 2010 and No.23209 dated 17th May, 2010 are listed for hearing today. These applications are found to have been filed by respondent No.4-Smt. Gopali Devi. 2. Smt. Gopali Devi is not present in the Court. She is being represented by her power of attorney holder-Mr. Damodar Prasad Sharma who is respondent No.2 also in the writ petition. 3. On being asked to argue on these two applications, Mr. Damodar Prasad Sharma told that he was totally unaware of the fact of both these applications. He also failed to tell this Court as to what relief has been sought for by him in these two applications. The first application is running into 55 pages and the second application is in about 45-50 pages. He is unable to tell the Court as to why these applications have been filed. Both the applications seem to be totally irrelevant and thus they being bereft of any merit stand dismissed. -2- 4. Heard on the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Prakash Narain Sharma. 5. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to issue directions to the learned trial Court for the expeditious disposal of civil suit No.222/2005 titled as Prakash Narain Vs. Damodar Prasad and ors. 6. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the petitioner has not impugned any order passed by the Court below. The petitioner has come to this Court to seek directions for quick disposal of the said suit. Needless to say that a writ can be issued only under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 227 envisages only superintendence over all courts and Tribunals. In the case of Sushila Bai Vs. Nihal Chand reported in AIR 1992 SC 185, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is a revisional jurisdiction but from any stretch of imagination, no writ can be issued there under. In view of the afore-stated legal position, the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition with regard to issuing directions for expeditious disposal of the suit is found to be irrelevant and beyond jurisdiction -3- of this Court. Hence, the writ petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg