JUDGMENT ANIL KUMAR, J.-Heard Shri Arvind Razdan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Verma, Counsel for the opposite party. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property known as "Asha Apartment-II, 13, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow, the same was let out to the respondent No.2, Aircel Digilink India Limited on the monthly rent of Rs. 7,763/-. 3. Thereafter in respect to the property in question S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2008 has been filed in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow and subsequent to the transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Lucknow where the same pending for adjudication. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said suit had proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No.2 who is the defendant in the said suit, he did not appear in spite of the service of the notice. Moreover, the arguments were heard by the Court below identically on behalf of the plaintiff thereafter again the date of re-argument have been fixed without any rhyme and reason. 5. He submits that the matter in question is lingering at the end of opposite party No.2 without any fault on the part of the petitioner, hence the present writ petition has been filed praying therein that Court below may be directed to decide the S.C.C. suit at an early date. 6. It is late in the day to quarrel that if a suit is filed before any Competent Court of law then the same is to be decided only after pleadings are contemplated, oral and documentary evidence taken on record, in addition to the said fact, the Court concerned has also to keep in mind the pendency of the other suits pending before it. Further, if any suit is given priority for deciding, over and above to other suits which are filed earlier and pending then the same can be done only in exceptional circumstances taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the suit which is given priority, over the other suits pending in the Court. 7. Further, if any suit is given priority for deciding, over and above to other suits which are filed earlier and pending then the same can be done only in exceptional circumstances taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the suit which is given priority, over the other suits pending in the Court. 7. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner fails to point out a single reason and circumstances in view of which the priority should be given to the suit in question to be expedite and decided on early date only submission which is made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit has proceeded ex-parte against the defendant and thereafter the argument heard and the judgment reserved however without any reason the matter is again fixed for hearing. The said reasoning given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not carved out a case for expediting the hearing in the matter thereby giving the priority to the suit, to be decided expeditiously giving priority over the other suit which are filed prior and to it is still pending for adjudication before opposite party No.1, the said fact has also been admitted by the Counsel for the petitioner. 8. In view of the abovesaid facts, I do not find any good and sufficient reason on merit to expedite the hearing of the matter in question. Hence, the present writ petition, is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.