JUDGMENT 1. THIS application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution inter alia praying for early disposal of Other Suit No.01 of 2007 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Port Blair filed as against the petitioner and two other defendants. 2. PERUSAL of the prayer would depict that the petitioner prayed for disposal of the said suit within three months from the date of the order to be passed herein fixing the suit on day to day basis without allowing any unnecessary adjournment. The prayer, is innocuous. However, it has a far reaching effect. Hence, I intend to go deep into the matter. Mr. N. A. Khan, learned Counsel appearing in support of the application contended that the petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed by the plaintiff as would appear from the order sheet annexed to the application. Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein, however, disputed such contention. 3. AT the interlocutory stage, the learned Judge upon hearing both sides vide judgment and order dated March 30, 2007 directed parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Since then, on one pretext or the other the plaintiff is delaying the process of final disposal. It seems that the plaintiff is hot interested to have the suit disposed of at an early date. This would be clear on perusal of the order sheet. 4. PROBLEM is somewhat different. Considering the conduct of the plaintiff in the instant case if I allow the application and direct disposal of the suit at an early date this suit would have a priority over all pending suits before the learned Judge. The learned Judge would also have to take up hearing of the suit day to day ignoring his daily business schedule. In my view, it is high time we should re-consider our approach while dealing with this type of applications. The prayer may be innocuous, but, it would have a far reaching effect as it would disturb the schedule. Perusal of the order sheet it would appear that repeated adjournments were taken by the plaintiff. The learned Judge imposed cost on the plaintiff. Hence the learned Judge is not at fault. Let him, in my view, take up the hearing in usual course following the schedule and dispose of the suits according to the date of filing. Perusal of the order sheet it would appear that repeated adjournments were taken by the plaintiff. The learned Judge imposed cost on the plaintiff. Hence the learned Judge is not at fault. Let him, in my view, take up the hearing in usual course following the schedule and dispose of the suits according to the date of filing. A litigant who can master financial resource to approach the High Court to get an order of early disposal would have preference over other litigants who are waiting to have their suits disposed of maintaining the schedule and as per turn considering the date of filing. In my view, the High Court should interfere only when the High Court would be of the prima facie view that the learned Judicial Officer is not taking up the issue in the way it should have been. Otherwise if we issue this type of direction upon the learned Judicial Officers liberally it would not only break the schedule but also have an additional pressure upon the concerned Judicial Officer that would otherwise disturb his peace of mind which is bound to reflect on the ultimate judicial decision. 5. IN the instant case, on perusal of the order sheet it is clear that plaintiff is delaying the process. I have full confidence in the learned Judge and I feel that he would certainly take adequate steps strictly in accordance with law to have expeditious disposal of the suit. Any further direction from this Court would otherwise disturb the schedule of the Court. 6. WITH these observations, I dispose of CR No.018 of 2010 without, however, any order as to costs.