( 1 ) IN the Instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V/civil Judge (Senior Division ). Gorakhpur to adjudicate and decide Original Suit No. 1990 of 1988, Nitya Wand Pandey v. Sharda Prasad Pandey and others within a specified time.

( 2 ) THE facts alleged by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from cutting down the trees standing over the suit land as well as from raising any construction over the same. A relief for mandatory injunction for removal of boundary wall and door raised over the suit land has also been claimed. The aforesaid suit filed on 9. 8. 1988 was registered as Original Suit No. 1990 of 1988, Nttya Nand Pandey v. Sharda Prasad Pandey and others in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur, now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V/civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur.

( 3 ) TN the said suit, written statement was filed and necessary issues were settled. The parties also led their evidence in support of their respective claims. It has been alleged by the writ petitioner that the defendants, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the Instant writ petition, are adopting dilatory tactics by taking adjournments and are trying to prolong the litigation by filing one application or the other very often. The suit was fixed for final hearing on 8. 12. 1999. In the meantime on 30. 11. 1999 the respondent made an application for making formal order and on 8. 12. 1999 the respondents sought for adjournment, which was allowed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs. 20 as costs, fixing 23. 12. 1999. Thereafter several dates were fixed by the trial court but the respondents did not allow the trial court to proceed with the suit and on one pretext or the other got adjournments. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be Issued directing the District Judge to expeditiously dispose of the trial.

( 4 ) WE are afraid that we are unable to grant any relief in the Instant case, since in our view, it will not be proper to exercise such power in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India in respect of a civil suit pending before the district court. The Civil procedure Code itself provides remedy in such circumstances. In this connection. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be taken note of :

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.-- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the district Court may at any stage : (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) Try or dispose of the same ; or (ii) Transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same ; or (iii) Retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2 ). . . . . "

If the petitioner is really aggrieved, he should have applied under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also open to the petitioner to place an application before the district Judge for transfer of the suit. It may also be noted that the Allahabad High Court Rules also provides relief in appropriate circumstances for transfer of a proceeding.

( 5 ) UNDER Chapter VIII, Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the High Court has power under extraordinary original civil jurisdiction to remove any suit being or failing within the jurisdiction of any Court subject to its superintendence when it shall think proper to do so ether on the agreement of the