Judgment :- 1. Proceedings in this writ petition, very ironically began before this court as one in respect of an order complained in the writ petition, on the premise that there was no efficacious remedy available to the aggrieved person as provided under any of the statutory provisions. 2. Writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary, special jurisdiction conferred on the superior courts in this country and in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on High Courts. 3. While Article 226 of the Constitution of India enables High courts to issue prerogative writs. In the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative action or legislative action. Article 227 of Constitution of India confers on the High court a jurisdiction which can be more appropriately described as a responsibility and as the caption of the Article indicates ‘power of superintendence of all courts by the High Court’ reading as under: 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court – (1) Every high courts shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may— (a)call for returns from such courts: (b)make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts: and (c) Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. 4. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. 4. This power is akin to the power conferred on the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there has been frequent debates as to which provision confers on the High court a wider or superior power or allows a wider jurisdiction [See decision in SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003) 6 SCC 675 – PARAS 28,29,34, & 38]. For the purpose of the present order, it many not be necessary for this court to go into this question, as the intended manner of exercise of power, even while examining a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is one, which has not only even otherwise become necessary in the present case, but also is welcomed by the parties to the petition and the suit, as submitted by their learned counsel, who are the same parties to the OS No 16158 of 2005, now pending in the court of XXVIII Addl City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore. 5. The suit had a rather a checkered and dubious history, in the sense, orders passed by the learned judge of the trial court during the pendency of the suit on interlocutory applications became subject matter of a first appeal in MFA No 2559 of 2006 and also the present writ petition. 6. This writ petition, though had been disposed of in terms of the order dated 2-3-2009, like the proverbial cat having nine lives, has, nevertheless, come out of the bag, and has managed to come up before this court for further orders etc.. notwithstanding the earlier disposal of the writ petition as per the order dated 2-3-2009 and with the following conclusion: 34. It is for this reason, this writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. 35. The impugned order under Annexure-E dated 24.3.2008 passed on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure in OS No 16158 of 2005 passed by the court of the City Civil Jude at Bangalore, Mayo Hall. [CCH-21] is quashed and the application is dismissed. 36. Rule made absolute. 35. The impugned order under Annexure-E dated 24.3.2008 passed on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure in OS No 16158 of 2005 passed by the court of the City Civil Jude at Bangalore, Mayo Hall. [CCH-21] is quashed and the application is dismissed. 36. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as had been earlier impressed by this court and at least now within a further period of six months from this date without bestowing more attention to the interlocutory applications but on the main matter. 7. It is because the suit does not culminate within the period of six months has had been stipulated in terms of the order dated 2-3-2009 it has become necessary for the learned judge of the trial court to address the letter to this court seeking for extension of time to dispose of the suit. It is on such a request, this court has passed order on 13-11-2009 extending time for disposal by granting further six weeks as indicated therein and even thereafter, the suit having not been concluded, it had become inevitable for the learned judge of the trial court to seek further extension of time and it is in the wake of such request letter, proceedings started from 9-10-2009. Which as could be found in the order sheet of this writ petition, is for passing orders on the latest communication from the learned judge of the trial court as per the letter dated 2-9-2009. 8. This court noticing that the learned judge of the trial court has not been complying with the repeated directions that had been issued by this court for the expeditious disposal of the suit and at any rate not later than six months from the date of the order etc.. 8. This court noticing that the learned judge of the trial court has not been complying with the repeated directions that had been issued by this court for the expeditious disposal of the suit and at any rate not later than six months from the date of the order etc.. This court had directed the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of this court to look in to the matter and apprise this court as to the action taken in the matter as per the order dated 9-10-2009 reading as under: This court in terms of the order dated 2-3-2009 passed in this writ petition while allowing the writ petition, directed the learned trial judge to dispose of the main matter i.e. OS No 16158 of 2005, pending on the file of the court of City Civil Judge, Mayo hall [CCH 21] Bangalore, within a further period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without getting detracted by unnecessary interlocutory applications but to concentrate on the main matter. While the learned trial judge who has obviously not complied with this order, has addressed a letter dated 2-9-2009 to the Registrar General of this court, seeking for extension of time by another six months from the date of letter i.e. from 2-9-2009 for the disposal of the case on merit. While it is not within the powers of the Registrar General of this court to extend any time stipulated in terms of an order passed by this court, the contents of the letter also do either reflected a very sorry state of affairs and the manner of the functioning of the Registry of this court or some misleading or incorrect statements being made, as it is indicated by the learned trail judge that a copy of the order was received at the city civil court only on 20-8-2009 i.e. almost six months after the order was passed. It is not known when the relevant records were transmitted or when the order was forwarded to the trail court by the Registry It is also indicated in the letter that neither party had bought to the notice of the court about the passing of the order and the court was ignorant of this development etc. It is not known when the relevant records were transmitted or when the order was forwarded to the trail court by the Registry It is also indicated in the letter that neither party had bought to the notice of the court about the passing of the order and the court was ignorant of this development etc. The letter also indicates that the suit had been listed for some orders on 10.7.2009 and again on 25-7-2009, 14-8-2009, 21-8-2009 and again listed for further orders on 24-8-2009 and that the case was yet again listed for further orders on certain applications on 3-9-2009. It is at this stage, the letter is addressed to the Registrar General of this court seeking for extension of time. I find that the contents of the letter lacking bona fides, virtually one misrepresenting or trying to place incorrect facts before this court or even before the Registrar General. The Registrar General as well as the Registrar Judicial are directed to look into the matter, seek an explanation, if any, from the learned trial judge in the matter and place a report before this court by next Friday. List the matter on 16-10-2009 for further orders on the request letter of the learned trial judge. The matter having been listed before this court on 16-10-2009 and again on 13-11-2009 and thereafter on 12-3-2010, lead to passing the following order: Yet another letter, which is dated 1-3-2010, from Sri V.G. Savadkar, learned XXVIII Addl City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore, which is more or less on the same lines of an earlier like request letter dated 13-10-2009, requesting for extension of time for disposal of the suit till the end of June 2010. This request is in the background of the earlier order dated 13-11-2009, reading as under: In the wake of the repeated extensions sought for by the learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, seeking extension of time for disposal of the suit in O.S. NO. This request is in the background of the earlier order dated 13-11-2009, reading as under: In the wake of the repeated extensions sought for by the learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, seeking extension of time for disposal of the suit in O.S. NO. 161558/2005 pending on the file of that Court, notwithstanding a very clear direction by this Court on 02.03.2009, while passing orders on W.P No.6238/08 to the effect that the suit should be disposed of within an outer limit of six months from the date of suit itself or within a period of six months from that day, for not having been done and certain explanation having been given for the cause and the Registrar General having further submitted a report dated 29.10.2009 indicating that while the explanation in justification offered by the learned Civil Judge appears to be reasonable and acceptable the report further having indicated that there were certain lapses/remiss at the Registry level while Registrar General is directed to pursue the enquiry as to the cause for such lapses at the Registry level and to take action as is warranted in the situation and by seeking necessary permission if needed, the time for disposal of the suit is extended by a further period of six months from the date initially stipulated by this Court. impressing upon the learned judge to dispose of the suit within a further period of six months from the original date as had been stipulated by this court while disposing of this writ petition in terms of the order dated 2-3-2009 passed by this court, while disposing of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and impressing upon the learned judge of the lower court to dispose of the main suit within a period of six months without getting himself distracted or allowing his attention to be diverted by the interlocutory applications that may be filed in the suit, the contents of the present letter seeking for further extension of time, even after one extension having already been granted by this court once only indicates that the learned judge has blissfully allowed his focus to be swayed to the bylines of the application rather than proceedings on the royal path of the efforts to dispose of the main suit. The contents of the letter only appears to be a poor alibi for seeking further extension of time to dispose of the suit, perhaps only to cover up the incompetence on the part of the learned judge, who has not made any headway for the disposal of the suit but has also has for a good measure calls in aid, the need to dispose of the old cases, a few of them mentioned in the letter and of the years 1981, 1992, 1993 and the pressure on the court to adhere to the action plan to dispose of old cases, as referred to above. The priority to be given to senior citizens cases and the delay due to entertaining application for amendment of the plaint and yet another application for appointment of court commissioner and the court commissioner blissfully not submitting his report within the stipulated time, are all cited as further grounds for seeking extension of time for the disposal of the main suit. The grounds indicated in the letter only appear to be more a ruse than any genuine cause and if at all is only a reflection of the incompetence of the judge and apart from this, the learned judge while has clearly disregarded the directions issued by this court has been focusing his attention more for entertaining and being engaged in the disposal of the interlocutory applications rather than bestowing his attention to the disposal of the main matter. In the wake of the earlier directions and extending time for further period of six months as per the order dated 13-11-2009 and with the Registrar General of this court having given a report on that occasion, recommending for extension of time, the Registrar General was requested to be present before the court to assist the court and also to examine the present position and to make submission on the report. Registrar General, who is before the court, submits that the main cause for the inability on the part of the learned judge to dispose of the suit appears to be his preoccupation with the disposal of interlocutory applications rather than paying attention to the main matter. Registrar General, who is before the court, submits that the main cause for the inability on the part of the learned judge to dispose of the suit appears to be his preoccupation with the disposal of interlocutory applications rather than paying attention to the main matter. While the conduct of the suit, which is a judicial proceeding is within the exclusive domain of the trial Judge, the High Courts having been conferred with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the State as provided for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India apart from conferring the power of monitoring the service conditions for subordinate Judiciary, as per Articles 233 to 238 in Chapter VI of the Constitution of India, a Judge in the subordinate court is bound to implement the directions issued by the High Court even as contained in a judicial order passed, while disposed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even in the discharge of the judicial functions. A Judge in the subordinate court is bound to follow and implement direction issued by the High Court. Disregarding a direction per se amounts to dereliction of duty, may reflect on the ability of the Judge to perform his duties and while may even amount to a misconduct on the part of the Judge, disregarding the direction, if such disregard is found to be deliberate or intended can also give rise to action in contempt jurisdiction. The Registrar General has also pointed out about the pending enquiry against the officials in the registry of this court, in the context of the delay in dispatching certain orders from this court and the outcome is awaited. While a report in this regard may be submitted as and when the matter concludes, as prima facie, it appears no ground or justification has been made out in the letter and no such justification is discernable, before passing any orders on the letter, it is desirable for the Registrar General of this court to yet again to look into the matter and submit a report in this regard, in the wake of the present letter. The Registrar General to submit a report in this regard on or before next week. The Registrar General may secure and peruse the records of the lower court, for such purpose. List the matter for further orders on 19-3-2010. The Registrar General to submit a report in this regard on or before next week. The Registrar General may secure and peruse the records of the lower court, for such purpose. List the matter for further orders on 19-3-2010. These developments only led to further orders in 19-3-2010, compelling this court to examine the possibility of exercising power under Section 24 CPC and resulting in the following order on 19-3-2010: This matter is listed for passing orders on the request letter dated 1-3-2010, from Sri V G Savadkar, learned XXVII Addl City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore, seeking for extension of time for disposal of the suit till the end of June 2010, though there was a specific direction to dispose of the suit within certain timeframe, as ordered by this court once earlier, while passing orders on the main writ petition and again on one such like request letter which was ordered on 13-11-2009. The Registrar General of this court had been requested to look into the contents of the letter and to submit a report. The Registrar General has looked into the contents of the letter and for such purpose record had also been secured from the lower court and submitted a report dated 17-3-2010, indicating, inter alia, that the learned judge of the trial court appears to have not made out any good or justifiable grounds to extend further time for the disposal of the suit, particularly as the learned judge has clearly disregarded for the direction contained in the order passed by this court, to confine his attention to disposal of the main matter, but in disregard of such a direction, has only been preoccupied with the consideration of interlocutory applications, resulting in the main matter not receiving commensurate attention. Sri G K Bhat, learned counsel for the third respondent in the writ petition, submits that in the wake of two affidavits that had been filed by the joint commission and the executive engineer of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), assuring that the BBMP was not very keen on laying a road within the campus of petitioner-university and with the relief sought for in the suit being only seeking for an injunction against the BBMP from laying any road and with the BBMP having indicated that they have no such proposal, to lay any road in the campus of the university, virtually nothing survive in the suit and it is not known why the learned judge of the trial court is finding it difficult to dispose of the main suit etc. Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent – Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society – submits that this respondent is merely a formal party and does not have much to contribute. Ms Shalmala and Sri Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner university and its vice-chancellor, submit that they are not in a state of preparedness to make submissions today, particularly as their colleague who was in charge of the matter having been retained by the government as its lawyer, they are in the process of making alternative arrangements for appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner more so the writ petition having already been disposed of with certain directions to the trial court and therefore requests minimum of one week’s time to respond to the submissions of Sri G K Bhat. Records of the suit that had been called for to enable the Registrar General of this court to submit a suitable report on the request letter for extending time for the disposal of the suit. The records are before the court. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the suit is by the Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association. Records of the suit that had been called for to enable the Registrar General of this court to submit a suitable report on the request letter for extending time for the disposal of the suit. The records are before the court. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the suit is by the Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association. GKVK Post, Bangalore -65, seeking for the following relief: (a) “Declare that the Schedule Road is a Public Road and that all members of the public have a right of way over the Schedule Road and the right to freely use the Schedule Road without any obstructions, hindrance or interference by any persons including defendant No.1 (b) PASS an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their agents, servants, assigns, representatives, contractors, students or any other person claiming through or under them from putting up any construction on the Schedule Road or blocking access to and use of the Schedule Road which is marked as ABCD in the colour red on the Comprehensive Development Plan approved in G.O. NO. HUD-139 MNJ 94 dated 5.01.95 (c) PASS an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their agents, assigns, representatives, contractors, students or any others person claiming through or under them from interfering with the access and use by the Plaintiff, its members etc.. from using the Schedule Road which is marked as ABCD in the colour red on the Comprehensive Development Plan approved in G.O. NO. HUD-139 MNJ 94 dated 5.01.95 While in the wake of the amended prayer in the plaint, ordered on 03.09.2009 and a copy of the amended plaint having been field on 23.10.2009 the scope of the suit has got enlarged, than for a mere decree for injunction. With the Registrar General of this court having reported that the learned judge of the trial court is not bestowing commensurate attention for the disposal of the suit and is virtually disregarding a direction issued by this court, it is necessary to examine the matter further both for the purpose of ascertaining the possibility for expeditious disposal of the suit and also for passing orders in the wake of the conduct of the learned judge of the trial court in discarding the direction issued by this court. I am of the opinion that this a fit case where this court should exercise the power vested on the high court under Section 24(1)(b)(i) and (ii) CPC and to pass orders under these provisions. For such purpose, the parties are hereby notified and to respond to this proposal to pass orders in terms of clause (i) or (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 CPC, Section 24 CPC reads as under: 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal: (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and (i) try or dispose of the same: or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same: or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1) the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of any order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court: (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. The parties to the writ petition, who were also parties in the suit, to respond to this proposal for withdrawing the suit in OS No 16158 of 2005, on the file of the court of XXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore either to try and dispose of the suit by this court itself or to transfer it to any other court, which can bestow commensurate attention for expeditious disposal of the suit. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of charge to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the writ petition. It is for the parties including the university, BBMP and the plaintiff in the suit to ensure that proper representation on their behalf on the next date of hearing, which is no fixed to be on 9-4-2010 and also to respond to the proposition to transfer the suit as indicated above. Registry is directed to retain the LCR which has been procured. Further proceedings before the trial court in OS No 16158 of 2005 is stayed pending further orders in this case. 9. As directed by this court, records of the trail court were also secured with this court itself disposing of the suit being one possibility. 10. However, in the wake of the further submissions on behalf of the parties, this court had examined such submissions and an order came to be passed on 11-6-2010, reading as under: This writ petition has come up for further orders pursuant to the order passed by this court on 28-5-2010 as under: The records of trial court have been secured. With regard to possibility of withdrawing the suit and trying it before this court itself or transfer to any other court, as had been indicated by this court in terms of order dated 12-3-2010. Sri Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-university submits that the university has no objection for this course of action. Sri Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent also submits that his client has no objection for this proposal. Sri Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-university submits that the university has no objection for this course of action. Sri Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent also submits that his client has no objection for this proposal. List for passing orders on the proposal on 11-6-2010 at 2.30 pm. The report submitted by the tahsildar, who had been appointed as court commissioner for submitting a report about the existence of a cart track as had been claimed by the plaintiff is available on record. Learned counsel for parties have perused the same. Objections if any to the report may be filed before this court on or before 10-4-2010 in the registry, furnishing copies to other side. List on 11-6-2010 at 2.30 pm Sri Sri Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-university submits that while the university has no objection for the withdrawal of the suit from the court-below and to transfer it either to this court or to any other court as per the direction of this court, objections to the report of the tahsildar, who had been appointed by the trial court to submit a report about the existence or otherwise of a cart-track as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, has already been filed before the trail court on 18-3-2010. However, on a perusal of the order sheet of the court below contained in the lower court records received by this court, it is seen that the record has been sent to this court as per the order passed by this court earlier and it is noticed that the record has been received at this court even as on 17-3-2010. Be that as it may, it is open to the defendant-university to file its objections, if any, to the report even now within a week’s time from today. Sri B Ramesh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the first respondent-plaintiff submits that he has been authorized to appear on behalf of the first respondent by the secretary of the first respondent-association and Sri Girikumar, advocate on record has also consented for his appearance etc, However, no power is filed and Sri Girikumar, continues to be on record as counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent. Therefore, there is no question of anyone else to appear for first respondent. Therefore, there is no question of anyone else to appear for first respondent. However, appearance of Sri B Ramesh is treated as appearance on behalf of Sri Girikumar and for the benefit of first respondent and his request to grant a week’s time not only for filing objections to the commissioner’s report but also to file power on behalf of first respondent. All compliance can be secured by next date of hearing. List on 18-6-2010 at 2.30 pm for passing orders not only on the proposal to withdraw the suit and transfer it to either to this court or any other court but also to pass of further orders on the report of the commissioner appointed by the court below. and the matter was further adjourned to 18-6-2010 mainly for the purpose of passing orders in terms of Section 24 CPC, as records having been called for by this court and the trail court virtually became dysfunctional in so far as this suit is concerned. 11. In the wake of these developments, the following order was passed on 25-6-2010: Sri Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-university and Sri B Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff, submit that it may be more practical and feasible to have the original suit transferred to any other court in the city civil courts at Bangalore than withdrawing the suit and trying it before this court. It is also pointed out that the parties may be deprived of their right of appeal to this court under Section 96 CPC if this court itself tried the suit and in such an event, the first appeal will lie only to the Supreme Court, which is not conducive in the interest of the parties, having regard to the logistics of time, expenses, distance etc. The learned judge of the trial court, who had been directed, not once but on three occasions, to dispose of the suit expeditiously and at any rate not later than the stipulated time under the order, having failed to do so, it has become necessary to transfer the suit to any other court and one possible reason may be that the court in which the suit was being tried was burdened with too many cases also. In fact, the learned counsel for the parties submit that this is the fact. In fact, the learned counsel for the parties submit that this is the fact. To ascertain as to the possibility of transferring the suit to any other court, having not a very heavy workload and for such purpose, the Registrar General of this court is directed to be present before the court with relevant information as to the workload in different courts at the City Civil Courts, Bangalore as of now. Registry is directed to bring this order to the notice of the Registrar General to enable him to equip himself with the relevant information and to place necessary material before the court by next Friday. List the matter at 2.30 pm on 2-7-2010 for such purpose. 12. When the matter is taken up today. Sri Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-university and Sri B Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff. Sri S Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri N G Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent are present and made their submissions. 13. Registrar General, who is present has placed a report before this court indicating, inter alia: that the factual position regarding pendency of number of cases, nature of cases in the 46 city civil courts functioning in Bangalore city and also information about the fast track courts etc. The information relating to fast track courts is not very relevant for our purpose and a perusal of the data as furnished by the Registrar General regarding pendency of cases in city civil courts at Bangalore, it is noticed that while some courts a rich in number of cases pending before them, a few courts are not burdened with as many as cases. 14. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in many special cases such as cases pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act and other special statutory enactments are being in the nature of cases involving not only questions of considerable importance but also elaborate material to be shifted through courts, which will be placed by parties in the form of evidence etc. number alone is the criterion but it is a fact that there are unimaginable number of cases in some courts and some courts are comparatively a lighter workload. 15. number alone is the criterion but it is a fact that there are unimaginable number of cases in some courts and some courts are comparatively a lighter workload. 15. Sri R B Budihal, Registrar General of this court, submits that the distribution of cases in different city civil courts is the responsibility of the principal city civil and sessions judge. This is an aspect which the learned principal city civil and sessions judge has to take note of to ensure as far as possible there is an even distribution of cases, so that all courts are enabled to work in a uniform and even manner, which ultimately will be detriment of the litigant public, as any judge can take up the load only as much as a human being can bear and not beyond and if it is beyond the physical capacity of the judge, to expect a judge to dispose of more cases just for showing the number of pendency of cases is not the solution to the problem. 16. While reducing the docket explosion by providing for commensurate number of judges and courts is an aspect touching upon the policy matter of the state and it cannot be gainsaid that judicial system being inevitably an organ of the state under our constitutional scheme, it is also the responsibility of the executive government to respond to the needs and requirements of the litigant public and to ensure that there are commensurate number of courts manned with judges to redress the grievance of the litigant public, who approach courts for relief. 17. While such matters can be addressed by the executive part of the governance, it is also the duty of persons within the judiciary, who have such limited administrative responsibilities as are inevitable for the day today functioning of the court, to bestow their attention to ensure that available courts and judges are utilized in a meaningful way to achieve the optimum results. 18. In the wake of the information as is available from the data placed by the Registrar General before this court and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the Registrar General. 18. In the wake of the information as is available from the data placed by the Registrar General before this court and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the Registrar General. I am of the view that the order passed in the suit, out of which the present writ petition has been necessitated, i.e. OS No 16158 of 2005 is to be withdrawn from the present court i.e. XXVIII Addl City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore, is to be transferred to the court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city, Bangalore. 19. The learned Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city is impressed upon to look at the background of this case and to make all earnest efforts to dispose of the suit expeditiously and within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the records in this case from this court. Parties to the suit viz..., the plaintiff and the defendants, to appear before the learned Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city on 19-7-2010 without any further notice. 20. The learned principal city civil & Sessions judge, Bangalore City to proceed with the suit from the stage at which it had stopped before the earlier court. 21. Papers presented by the parties before this court in this writ petition as part of the proceedings in the suit also to be transmitted along with the records of the suit to the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city, Registry is directed to act accordingly.