By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 - Judge, Small Causes (Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad, to decide finally Suit No. 484 of 2007 (Sarjeet Kumar Ghoshal and others v. Km. Shobha Bose and others) as also to respondent No. 2-Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad to decide Civil Revision No. 257 of 2009 (Sarjeet Kumar Ghoshal and others v. Km. Shobha Bose and others) within a fixed time.

2. Mr. A.M. Lal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that because of delaying tactics adopted by the other side, aforesaid suit is not being disposed of expeditiously. It is further pointed out that in case the suit is not decided expeditiously, the petitioner who is an aged lady may not live long to see its result. It is not the case of the petitioner that cases instituted later on have been decided and for one reason or the other, the Judge in seisin of the case is purposely not disposing of her case.

3. The prayer made in this petition for expeditious disposal of the suit/revision, in sum and substance, is nothing but a prayer for out of turn hearing of the suit. We are unaware of the docket of the Judge, Small Causes Court in seisin of the matter. We also do not know that suits of earlier years in which old ladies figure, are pending or not. However, it is common knowledge that thousands of cases instituted earlier by persons more aged than the petitioner are unfortunately pending in the Court. It is systemic delay. It is further common knowledge that direction of the nature, if granted, affects the working of the Court and the Judges, in seisin of such cases, remain ordinarily occupied with only those cases in which directions have been given for expeditious disposal and cases filed earlier gets ignored as those litigating from earlier years have no resources to approach this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It is further common knowledge that many of the Judges, because of sheer number of such directions, are unable to carry out these directions and subjected to contempt proceedings and even personally directed to appear in such proceedings.

4. Such a prayer made in routine manner can not be granted without serious application of mind. It is high time that we must give serious thought to all these considerations before passing any order for expeditious disposal. We are not oblivion of the fact that this Court does possess power to direct early disposal of the case but as often said more the power greater the responsibility. We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced.

5. We hasten to add that even in such kind of cases, ordinarily this Court would relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the Court in seisin of the lis to take appropriate decision, as it is that Court which can consider the matter in totality of the circumstances.

6. When tested on the aforesaid parameter, we are of the opinion that direction sought for is not fit to be granted.

7. We are of the opinion that this petition is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be dism