Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. The plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court to expedite the Misc. Case No. 8 of 2013 (Ram Naresh Singh versus State of U.P. & others) pending before District Judge, Siddharthnagar.

3. The Honble Supreme Court in Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others, , has made the following observations:

...................It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.

4. In view of the decision in the case of Km. Shobha Bose versus Judge Small Causes Court 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB). It is not proper to issue any positive direction for time bound disposal of any proceedings without ascertaining the position of the workload in the court concern and in the absence of any allegation that the court below is responsible for the delay.

5. No ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The writ petition is dismissed.

7. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the plaintiff/petitioner in filing appropriate urgency application before the concerned court which shall consider the said application and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.