Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. - This Court by order dated 21. 10. 2011 had required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions with regard to the alleged disobedience. Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that despite letter having been sent, he has not received any instructions so far from the opposite party no. 1. This application has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13. 12. 2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 72107 of 2010. The order is quoted hereunder- "This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the Respondent No. 1, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur to expedite the proceeding of Small Causes Execution Case No. 1/2006/68 pending in its court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent No. 1, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur is directed to expedite the proceeding of Small Causes Execution Case No. 1/2006/68 without granting unnecessary adjournment to the either of the side provided there is no legal impediment. With this observation the writ petition stands disposed of. " A copy of the order sheet has been annexed to show that no effective orders are being passed by the executing Court resulting into gross and irreparable loss to the applicant and further amounting to non compliance of the directions issued by the Writ Court which provided that the execution proceedings may be expedited. From a perusal of the record it appears that the applicant who is landlord filed small causes suit in the year 1986, for recovery of rent and ejectment against the opposite party no. 2. The said suit was decreed exparte in the year 2000. Thereafter the revision filed by the tenant was allowed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur by order dated 7. 11. 2003 and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes Court, the Revisional Court directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887. The landlord petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 51245 of 2003 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30. 07. 2004. The landlord petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 51245 of 2003 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30. 07. 2004. This Court remitted the matter to the Revisional Court to decide the question of rate of rent and default after holding that the suit was maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court and the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Against the said judgment a review application was filed which was apparently not pressed. The Revisional Court thereafter vide judgment and order dated 28. 08. 2006 dismissed the revision of the tenant. Against the same the opposite party respondent no. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 62853 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12. 12. 2007. According to the learned counsel for the applicant thereafter the matter was not carried any further and as such the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment became final and executable. The execution proceedings were pending and were being unnecessarily delayed on account of dilatory tactics having been adopted by the tenant judgment debtor. As such the applicant approached this Court for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings by way of Writ Petition No. 72107 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 13. 12. 2010 which has been quoted in the earlier part of this order, non compliance of which has been alleged. From a perusal of the order sheet filed by the applicant along with the petition it appears that in large number of occasions the Presiding Officer had been absent, on few occasions only lawyer had been abstaining from work and most of the time it is the tenant judgment debtor who had been getting the matter adjourned on one pretext or the other. Proceedings under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 are summary in nature and are to be decided at the earliest. In the present case despite the fact that execution came in the year 2007 but for the last 4 years without there being any legal impediment by way of any interim order by any superior Court, the execution proceedings are still pending and the applicant has not been able to reap the benefits of his decree passed in the year 2000 in regard to a suit filed in the year 1986. In view of the above taking into consideration the fact that there have been various reasons for the execution proceedings to remain pending I am not issuing notices to the opposite party no. 1 who is a Judicial Officer. However at the same time this Court cannot close its eyes and sit back with folded hands where injustice appears to be glaring from the record. The faith of the public in the judiciary cannot be allowed to be diminished. Measures have to be taken by the Courts to ensure that the faith of the public at large is not further eroded, in the judicial system. Accordingly this contempt application is disposed of with clear expectation that the Civil Judge (Sr. Div. ), Ghazipur before whom the execution proceedings are pending shall conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order so that justice is done to the applicant. Further the tenant judgment debtor should be put to strict terms in case adjournment is sought and for the reasons to be recorded, the same may be rejected, if necessary. Apparently, in view of the findings recorded in the judgments passed by different Courts, the judgment debtor has no sound legal objections available to him obstructing the execution of the decree except for some frivolous ones which should be dealt with firmly if raised. With the aforesaid observations this Contempt application stands disposed of.