JUDGMENT : RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed notice to the private respondent no. 3 is dispensed with. 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed praying for a direction to the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Faizabad Division Faizabad, to dispose of Revision No. 1173, Tejwant v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., moved by the petitioner under Section 219 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, expeditiously, within a certain time frame. 4. In Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors., 2011 (88) ALR 850, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or any other cases should be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner, this Court held : "3. The prayer made in this petition for expeditious disposal of the suit/revision, in sum and substance, is nothing but a prayer for out of turn hearing of the suit. We are unaware of the docket of the Judge, Small Causes Court in seisin of the matter. We also do not know that suits of earlier years in which old ladies figure, are pending or not. However, it is common knowledge that thousands of cases instituted earlier by persons more aged than the petitioner are unfortunately pending in the Court. It is systemic delay. It is further common knowledge that direction of the nature, if granted, affects the working of the Court and the Judges, in seisin of such cases, remain ordinarily occupied with only those cases in which directions have been given for expeditious disposal and cases filed earlier gets ignored as those litigating from earlier years have no resources to approach this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It is further common knowledge that many of the Judges, because of sheer number of such directions, are unable to carry out these directions and subjected to contempt proceedings and even personally directed to appear in such proceedings. Such a prayer made in routine manner can not be granted without serious application of mind. It is high time that we must give serious thought to all these considerations before passing any order for expeditious disposal. Such a prayer made in routine manner can not be granted without serious application of mind. It is high time that we must give serious thought to all these considerations before passing any order for expeditious disposal. We are not oblivion of the fact that this Court does possess power to direct early disposal of the case but as often said more the power greater the responsibility. We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced. 4. We hasten to add that even in such kind of cases, ordinarily this Court would relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the Court in seisin of the lis to take appropriate decision, as it is that Court which can consider the matter in totality of the circumstances." (emphasis supplied) 5. In Ali Shad Usmani & Ors. v. Ali Isteba & Ors. 2015 (109) ALR 513 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the hearing of a suit or any case should be issued with greatest care and circumspection and it should be left to the court concerned to take into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and then decide as to whether the hearing of the case was to be expedited. Relevant portion of the said report is being extracted below: "2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. Relevant portion of the said report is being extracted below: "2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order. 3. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disability socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited." (emphasis supplied) 6. In the case at hand, the revision mentioned above was filed in the year 2012. There is nothing on record to indicate the number of cases pending in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. It is however, not disputed that a large number of cases filed earlier in point of time are still pending. 7. When the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned above, no direction can be issued to the Court concerned to decide the revision mentioned above, within a certain time frame. The relief prayed for cannot be granted. 8. 7. When the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned above, no direction can be issued to the Court concerned to decide the revision mentioned above, within a certain time frame. The relief prayed for cannot be granted. 8. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to move an application before the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, along with a certified copy of this order for expeditious disposal of his case giving cogent reasons as to why his case should be given precedence over other older cases pending before the Court concerned. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the Court concerned shall dispose of the same expeditiously by a speaking order after taking into account his roaster of older cases. 9. With the aforesaid observations this petition is finally disposed of.