1. Petitioner case is that on 06th of October, 2001 he instituted a Civil Original Suit for possession and injunction in respect of four rooms, one store, two bath rooms and a temporary kitchen of House No. 6-A, Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu which is pending in the court of Learned Principal District Judge, Jammu. The cause for filing this petition is that even though issues have been framed in the year 2006 but no effective proceedings have taken place in the suit in as much as even the witnesses of the petitioner-plaintiff are not being examined. It is stated that defendants-respondents are taking adjournment on one pretext or the other before the court below. Petitioner thus submits that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Judge to expeditiously decide the case, and if any adjournment is sought by respondents that may be granted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- for every adjournment. It is further stated that petitioner is residing at Himachal Pradesh as he has no place to live at Jammu and has to come from Himachal Pradesh on each and every date of hearing to prosecute the suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without any sufficient cause, respondents are using delaying tactics to frustrate the petitioner. 4. People enter into Court precincts to get their disputes resolved in accordance with law and with benign hope that justice would be meted out at the earliest. In a democratic setup all the institutions including that of judiciary survives on the faith of people, keeping same in view the amendments were made in Civil Procedure Code. 5. Order 17 of C.P.C. provides that Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. 6. Sub-rule 2 of the order 17 C.P.C. provides that in every such case the Court should fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment. 7. 6. Sub-rule 2 of the order 17 C.P.C. provides that in every such case the Court should fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment. 7. The proviso attached to Rule 2 further mandates that proceedings shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The said proviso further provides no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. 8. In this backdrop, learned trial court is duty bound to follow the mandate of the law. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that issues have been framed in the year 2006 but witnesses of the petitioner have not been examined till date. The said situation projected is horrifying. But since this case is disposed of without notice to other side it will not be proper to express any opinion by the Court on this aspect of the matter. 9. This petition, accordingly, is disposed of with the observation that learned trial Judge will proceed with the trial of the case by strictly following the mandate as contained in order 17 of the C.P.C. and other enabling provisions contained therein, and will ensure that every date of hearing becomes an effective date of hearing and proceedings are not rendered meaningless and frustrating for the petitioner. Learned trial Judge in order to ensure that faith of the people in the institution of judiciary is maintained will take effective steps for conducting proceedings of trial expeditiously. Disposed of.