A prior expeditious-disposal direction obviates a repeated request, but the trial court must proceed accordingly.

The petitioners, who were defendants before the trial court, invoked Article 227 seeking a direction to expedite Civil Suit No. 4A/2022 and conclude it within six months.

The suit, brought by respondent No. 15, concerned declaration of title, partition, and the validity of an order dated 6 May 2021 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division.

The petitioners stated that issues had not yet been framed.

The Court noted that a coordinate bench had already directed expeditious disposal of the suit in WP227 No. 1048/2024, decided on 20 November 2024, in proceedings concerning temporary injunction.

Whether the Court should issue a further direction for expeditious disposal of the suit when such a direction had already been made by a coordinate bench.

Whether the petition should be disposed of in light of the earlier direction.

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court relied on the earlier coordinate-bench direction dated 20 November 2024 for expeditious disposal of the suit; it cited no separate statutory provision or precedent.

It proceeded on the basis that, where an expeditious-disposal direction is already in place, a further identical direction is unnecessary, while the trial court is expected to comply with the existing direction and proceed in accordance with law.

The Court found that the petitioners’ request repeated relief already granted by the coordinate bench in the earlier proceedings.

It therefore considered a fresh direction unnecessary, but reiterated its expectation that the trial court would act expeditiously under the existing order and decide the suit on its merits in accordance with law.

It disposed of the writ petition, expecting the trial court to proceed expeditiously and conclude the suit as early as possible in accordance with law and on its merits.