Sanjay Misra, J.— Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice need not be issued to respondent no. 2, in view of the order being passed herein. Learned counsel for petitioner states that Temporary Injunction Application i.e. Paper No. 6-C filed in Civil Suit No. 504 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Nigam) by the petitioner is pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahar, Jaunpur. A prayer has been made to issue a direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the said application expeditiously. In so far as the relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, no such order requires to be passed by this Court since there is no material available on record to indicate the pendency position of cases before the respondent no.1 and as to how many older cases than of the petitioner, are pending before him. Therefore, this petition is finally disposed of by providing that the petitioner can file an expedite application before respondent no.1 for expeditious disposal of his application 6-C by giving reasons of urgency and in case such an expedite application is made the respondent no.1 should apply his mind to the reasons set forth regarding urgency and pass orders thereupon forthwith. In case the respondent no.1 accepts the grounds of urgency taken in the expedite application then he should ensure that any defendant who has put in appearance in the suit should be heard also on the application paper no. 6-C. However, if the trial court is of the opinion that the unserved defendants are necessarily to be heard then in that event the application of the petitioner if any for service of notice in accordance with the procedure prescribed may be considered and disposed of forthwith. No order is passed as to costs. _____________