JUDGMENT :

RAMESH SINHA, J.

1. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant, Rafiq Ahamad, questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2857 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge in last paragraph has directed as under:

“.....In case, any adjournment is given under compelling circumstances, then, the same shall not be granted without heavy cost.”

2. The genesis of the aforesaid contempt application is a judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 3369 of 2022, Rafiq Ahamad vs. State of U.P. and Others. The operative portion of the said judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 is required to be noticed and is set-out herein-below:

“9. This Court is of the considered view that two orders, impugned in the present application, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, which requires interference by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view thereof, the present application is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court should proceed with the trial expeditiously and, decide the same, without accommodating request for adjournment made either on behalf of plaintiff or defendant,, say within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is served/submitted as the plaintiffs are enjoying the temporary injunction.”

3. A bare perusal of the operative portion of the said judgment and order dated 13.07.2022, clearly reveals that there was a mandatory direction upon the learned trial Court (being the respondent no. 2 before us) to proceed with the trial expeditiously and decide the same without accommodating request for adjournment made either on behalf of plaintiff or defendant, within a period of one year from the date certified copy of the order is served/submitted.

4. It appears that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 was placed before the respondent no. 2 on 19.07.2022. Thereafter, on 27.07.2022, the respondent no. 2 had framed two issues, bearing issue nos. 6 and 7 regarding valuation of suit and Court, as preliminary issues, which were decided by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 19.09.2022. Thereafter, on 27.09.2022, the respondent no. 1 preferred an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add some new contents regarding Court fees, which was rejected by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.09.2022. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 1 had preferred a revision before the District Judge, Pratapgarh, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh vide order dated 09.11.2022. The learned Contempt Judge, after appreciating the facts that due to pendency of the revision, the respondent no. 2 had not proceeded with the suit and after dismissal of the revision, suit was listed on 11.11.2022, 17.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 and after applying mind, the respondent no. 2 had passed on every date and the suit has been listed for 14.12.2022, dismissed the contempt application vide order dated 13.12.2022 and further observed that it was expected to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pratapgarh to decide the suit in question, expeditiously, without giving unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and in case any adjournment is given under compelling circumstances, then, the same shall not be granted without heavy cost.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the direction of the Writ Court, while dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to proceed with the trial expeditiously and decide the same, without accommodating request for adjournment made either on behalf of plaintiff or defendant within a period of one year, but the Contempt Court, while adjudicating the contempt application filed by the appellant, has gone beyond the directions of the Writ Court and erred in observing that in case any adjournment is given under compelli