AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 197 wordsManoj Jain, J
Petitioner is defendant No.3 before the learned Trial Court.
She submits that the suit was filed way back in the year 2007 and the issues have yet not been framed and the case continues to be at the initial stages.
The copies of the various proceedings have also been placed on record and some of the recent proceedings would indicate that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 also expired and his LRs are yet to be brought on record.
Though, generally the Constitutional Courts would not give any time-bound direction unless there is a case of acute exigency or undue hardship but keeping in mind the fact that the suit was instituted way back in the year 2007, the learned Trial Court is requested to give utmost priority to the abovesaid suit which is, even otherwise, now around 18 years old and would make best endeavour to expedite the trial within one year of framing of issues.
The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information.