JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking a direction that suit No. 26/2010, titled Mohammed Yakub v. Khalik, filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs') pending before the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan be tried as expeditiously as possible as it has been pending for over seven years for reason of casual adjournments on mere askance. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant (hereafter ‘the defendant’) submits that the suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed in the year 2010. On service of summons, the defendants' counsel appeared and filed written statement. 3. Thereafter the matter is pending for plaintiffs' evidence, yet adjournments are being granted by the trial court on mere askance overlooking the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 CPC as also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [ (2011) 9 SCC 678 ], detrimental to the defendant's right to expeditious disposal of the suit as justice delayed is justice denied. Counsel submits that unconscionable delay in the trial of the suit tantamounts to deprivation of a right of adjudication of disputes and determination of civil rights. It leads to a sense of injustice, dilution of the rule of law and an inordinate delay in disposal of cases with the potential of creating an anarchic society. Justice is an essential human requirement. He submits that the plaintiffs have been delaying the case on frivolous grounds. Counsel submits that the civil court ought to grant adjournment only as an exception and not casually as if a right. He submits that adjournments should be by way of reasoned orders only with the object of ensuring a fair trial, not allowing proceedings in the suit to become an instrument of harassment to the opposite party. 4. Having heard counsel for the defendant, I am of the view that in the facts of the case, it is just and proper to direct the trial court to conclude the trial in the suit No. 26/2010 titled Mohammed Yakub v. Khalik expeditiously and in any event not later than twelve months from the next date in the case, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex (supra). Adjournment in the suit not be granted without just cause and should, when warranted, be by a reasoned order on a proper application being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Further miscellaneous applications be decided as far as possible within three days of filing and when found frivolous, be visited with costs. 5. With these directions, this petition is disposed of.