ORDER : 1. C.K. Thakkar, J, in Karnataka Housing Board v. Mudlaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 681 speaking for the Supreme Court has held that “once a direction is issued by competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without reservation. If an order passed by the court of law is not complied with or ignored, there will be an end of rule of law”. The above-stated statement of law aptly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 2. Timely justice is the very corner stone of rule of law and it has been a subject of lingering concern for the citizenry, as well as the other counterparts being members of legislature, executive and judiciary. It is no more res integra that speedy justice is a constitutional mandate, which holds it as an essential attribute of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Timely justice is an integral part of access of justice, and backlog of cases by not deciding in time, amounts to denial and derailment of justice. Insult is added to the injury, when despite directions of the superior courts to decide the matter within the given time band, far from deciding the same, officers show their unawareness about such direction. 3. Needless to say that it is expected from every judicial officer to decide and dispose of the case expeditiously, more particularly, when a time bound direction to decide a case has been made by the constitutional court. Such case requires special attention and different treatment. Failure to give such attention and treatment, without saying, brings the action of presiding judicial officer concerned within the ambit of willful disobedience. 4. Present is the case where despite direction of this Court dated 27-10-2005 to decide Civil Suit No.119-A/2004, to the trial Court (Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order, the suit was decided as late as on 4-8-2017. When the matter was not decided right in time as directed and none of them except one judicial officer Mr. When the matter was not decided right in time as directed and none of them except one judicial officer Mr. A.D. Tirkey sought time on 2-2-2017 and 19- 7-2017 to comply the order which was granted by this Court in M.C.C.No.1245/2013 by order dated 20-7-2017, the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur was requested to furnish name along with present place of posting of the judicial officers handling that case and those who have not complied the orders of this Court during the said period. As requested, list was furnished and then in terms of order dated 8-8-2017 explanation of concerned judicial officers namely Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, Shri Kamlesh Juri, Smt. Madhu Tiwari, Smt. Vibha Pandey, Kum. Smita Ratnavat, Shri Damrudhar Chouhan, Kum. Sarojini Parmar, Shri Sarv Vijay Agrawal, Shri Shantanu Kumar Deshlahare and Shri Anant Deep Tirkey, was sought. 5. By way of explanation, an attempt is made to impress upon, that such situation turned up because the presiding officers handling the case at the relevant time were not appraised about such direction of this Court, as the same was not brought to their notice. While writing so, they forgot to appreciate that notice can be either actual or constructive. Merely stating, one had no actual notice, cannot wash away his hands. Principle of constructive notice, brings him in dock. The presiding judicial officer would by remaining vigilant and alert and with due diligence could have avoided the present situation. Such an act on the part of the presiding judicial officers brings their action within the ambit of defiance of order of this Court. One after another, the presiding officers continued to defy despite notice to the trial Court and the District Judge, Raipur by this Court on 12-6-2017 for ascertaining the compliance of the order. Needless to quote here, the consequence of willful defiance of an order of this Court (High Court). However, considering their plea and that since this mater has been taken on judicial side, instead of taking any action as permitted under the law, I deem it appropriate to close the proceeding by directing the concerned judicial officers to be careful in future and to avoid precipitation of such matters in future. However, it is directed that any such direction by this Court should be taken up on priority basis and every endeavour should be made to decide the case within the time frame awarded. However, it is directed that any such direction by this Court should be taken up on priority basis and every endeavour should be made to decide the case within the time frame awarded. In the event of inability to conclude, a letter of request through proper channel be made well in advance, so as to reach the Registry of this Court, before expiry of the time granted. Every presiding judicial officer should maintain separately, a list of such cases in his court, and upon his transfer/superannuation, while handing over charge, shall intimate about such cases, in writing and under acknowledgment. 6. The Registrar General is directed to circulate a copy of this order to the above-stated judicial officers through the respective District Judges for information and for taking note of it. 7. The office reference is answered accordingly.