Judicial officers must decide pending matters within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely justice, as emphasized by Article 227 of the Constitution.

ORAL ORDER

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus & certiorari and any appropriate writ, order and direction to learned Principal Civil Judge & Civil Court, Sanand Ahmedabad to expedite the hearing of application Exh.47 in Civil Suit No.98 of 2015, pending before learned Principal Civil Judge & Civil Court, Sanand, Ahmedabad, and complete the entire proceeding of application Exh.47 in Civil Suit No.98 of 2015 is within one month from date of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in interest of justice.

(C ) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Chauhan appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant herein is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. He submits that the applicant herein instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 2015 for cancellation, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that the dispute involved in the present case is an inter se dispute amongst the family members in respect of their ancestral property, wherein some part of the property was also inherited by the applicant. However, the other co-owners of the property, keeping the applicant in dark, has created a false and fabricated signature on a declaration, declaring that she has relinquished all her rights from the property in question, although she has not signed on any such declaration. He also submits that, therefore, upon coming to know about such forgery and mutation of entries in the record of rights on the basis of such false declaration, the applicant instituted a suit before the competent Civil Court for cancellation, declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an application below Exh.5 also came to be preferred by the applicant, seeking temporary injunction, which came to be dismissed by the concerned trial court vide order dated 17.07.2019. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that thereafter, the applicant preferred an application below Exh.47 seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in respect of her signature on certain documents, panchnama and the declaration with regard to the mutation of the Entry Nos.2491, 2492 and 2493 in the revenue record. The said application was preferred on 06.09.2021 and the hearing of the said application was concluded on 23.12.2021, and the matter was kept ‘for orders’. However, more than two and half years have been lapsed, but uptill now, no order has been passed by the concerned trial judge and the application is pending before the court concerned without any adjudication since last more than two and half years. Thus, the applicant has left with no other option but to file the present application, seeking a direction to the concerned trial court to deliver the judgment as expeditiously as possible. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan prays that the present application be allowed and the reliefs, as sought for, be granted.

3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant and considered the averments made in the application.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the grievance raised by the applicant herein is against the concerned Presiding OfÏcer, who has not delivered the judgment in an application filed by the applicant way back on 06.09.2021, a hearing of which was concluded on 23.12.2021 and then it was kept ‘for orders’. A specific query was raised by the Court to the learned advocate for the applicant that whether the said fact has been brought to the notice of the administrative side of the concerned District Court or whether he has produced any document to substantiate his claim that the said fact of pendency of the appl