(1.) Heard counsel for Petitioner. Perused the report of learned Sub Judge.
(2.) W.P.C. No. 21623 of 2010 was disposed of on 12-07-2010 making it clear that Petitioner can make a request to the learned Sub Judge to expedite disposal of the applications referred to therein and that if any request is made by the Petitioner, learned Sub Judge shall consider the applications in the light of the urgency stated by Petitioner and dispose of the same at the earliest. Complaint of Petitioner is that in spite of making such a request before learned Sub Judge nothing transpired. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for Petitioner that trial court records are received in the court of learned Sub Judge through special messenger.
(3.) Learned Sub Judge in the report states that in the appeal Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 appeared on 31-05-2010, remaining Respondents are yet to appear and notices issued to them are not yet served. Learned Counsel for Petitioner asserts that presence of those Respondents who remained ex parte in the trial court is not necessary to dispose of the pending applications Learned Sub Judge also has not expressed in his report any difficulty to dispose of the applications in the absence of other Respondents who have not appeared. However I do not consider it necessary to enter into that question at this stage. It is for the learned Sub Judge to consider whether with the presence of parties who have already appeared, pending applications could be disposed of. Learned Sub Judge shall consider that the question and if presence of other Respondents who, learned Counsel tells me remained ex parte in the trial court is not necessary, the applications shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that I am not issuing any direction for time bound disposal since I am sure, learned Sub Judge will understand urgency of the matter urged by Petitioner and dispose of the applications as early as possible without waiting for a direction for time bound disposal.