- (1.) Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. A suit has been filed being Suit No. 1164 of 2010 for declaring the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad in exercise of power under Section 27 of the U.P.Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short the Act) as void. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against such an order appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act is provided and, therefore, such a suit is totally barred by the aforesaid Act and is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said suit written statement etc. have already been filed and the same is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent that the said suit may be decided expeditiously considering the fact that the suit itself is barred.
(2.) The suit is of the year 2010. In the absence of necessary pleadings, this Court is not aware of the pendency of other old cases before the court concerned who is in seize of the present matter. Any direction for the early disposal of this suit would in fact amount to giving priority to the above suit over and above other cases which may be pending before the court concerned since before institution of the suit in question.
(3.) Reference may be made on a Division Bench of this Court in Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes and others,2010 1 ADJ 531 wherein it has been held as under: "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.";