ORDER :

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in I.A.No.324 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2013 pending on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, seeking a judgment and decree for partition and separate possession. A preliminary decree was passed on 10.11.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.324 of 2018, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties. The said application was allowed on 02.03.2019, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, directing him to divide the suit properties into 2/7 shares and to file a report along with a plan. However, the matter has been pending for more than seven years, and till date, the Commissioner has not filed any report. The prolonged delay is causing great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the speedy disposal of I.A.No.324 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2013 is just and necessary.

3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:

“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.

12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”

4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899 , wherein, it has been held as follows:

“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal o