JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhinav Jaiswal, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to decide the proceeding of Case No. 03108 of 2020 (Daya Shankar vs. Tilakdhari and Others), Computerized Case No. T-202015060303108 filed under Section-116 of UP Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code, 2006'), pending before respondent no. 2.

3. This Court found that number of petitions are being filed in this Court simply for seeking direction to expedite the proceedings pending before the revenue court/Authority.

4. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ayodhya Sahai vs. District Judge, Jaunpur and Others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1677 after considering a similar issue and after taking into account the provision of C.P.C. as well as Cr.P.C. has observed that all suits, criminal trials and other kind of cases must be decided on the basis of a time bound programme and also issued a general mandamus in Paragraph-12 to all the Sub-ordinate Courts and Tribunals in State to decide suits, criminal trials, labour disputes, rent control cases and other cases on the basis of time bound programme fixed by the Court for each case. Paragraph-12 is being quoted as below:

“12. We also issue a general mandamus to all subordinate Courts and Tribunals in this State to decide suits, criminal trials labour disputes rent control cases and other cases, on basis of a time bound programme fixed by the Court for each case and usually by day-to-day hearing. Parties should not be allowed to deviate from the time schedule and the Court must refuse adjournment sought by counsels of the parties except on rare and exceptional grounds mentioned in Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. On receipt of a copy of this judgment every Court or Tribunal shall fix a time schedule for final disposal of each case in presence of parties, and learned counsel shall be informed that they shall not be allowed to deviate from the time schedule fixed. The exercise must start from the next date after receipt of this judgment. The learned District Judges and other Presiding Officers shall be personally responsible for strict compliance of the directions contained in this order.”

5. Similarly, Single Bench of this Court in Matters under Article 227 No. 2616 of 2012 (Raj Kumar Devi and Another vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Others) after taking into account the aforesaid judgment of Ayodhya Sahai (supra) again issued direction on 10.12.2022 permitting the petitioner to make an application for expeditious disposal to the court concerned and the court was directed to look into the matter in the light of general mandamus of Ayodhya Sahai (supra) case and to dispose of the same.

6. Section 214 of the Code, 2006 existing at present came into effect on 11.02.2016, provides that unless otherwise expressly provided under the Code, 2006, the provision of C.P.C. shall apply to every suit, application or proceeding under this Code, and thereafter, Rule 186 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2016') clarifies, the Section 214 of the Code and mandates that provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not be applicable to the summary proceeding under the Code or these Rules but the principle enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure and principles of natural justice shall be observed in the disposal of such proceedings. Therefore, from Section 214 of the Code, 2006 as well as from Rule 186 of the Rules, 2016 it is clear that even in summary proceeding, the principle of Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable.

7. Proviso of Order XVII Rule 1(2) of Code of Civil Procedure also provides expeditious disposal of cases and same is quoted as under:

“Costs of adjournment - In every such case the Court shall fix a day for th