JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The applicant has approached this Court to expedite the proceeding of injunction application 8Ga filed along with Suit No.710 of 2013 (Kalindi Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Srinath Developers and Promoters and others) pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, wherein, in para 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the petition stands disposed of directing the Court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the aforesaid application and conclude the same, at the earliest possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance with law.