JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners. 2. The defendants/petitioners have approached this Court to expedite the objection filed against the temporary injunction application (6C) under Order 39 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure pending before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) court No. 14, Allahabad. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations: - “…..............It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.” 4. In view of the decision in the case of Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes Court 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB), it is not proper to issue any positive direction for time bound disposal of any proceedings without ascertaining the position of the workload in the court concern and in the absence of any allegation that the court below is responsible for the delay. 5. Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to adjudicate the pending objection, in accordance with law, either on the next date fixed or immediately thereafter by fixing shot dates, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.