JUDGMENT : DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. 1. The matter is listed with several of the office objections. Apart from the other objections on the frame, the office has pointed out the question on the very maintainability of this intra-Court appeal with reference to the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, as also Rule 26 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. 2. Perusal of the record makes out that in relation to a civil suit, being O.S.No.1304/2015, in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the petitioner, said to be the plaintiff, preferred the writ petition bearing No.44391/2017 with the prayer that the directions be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the said suit within the timeframe of eight weeks or at the earliest. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with the observations that it was for the parties to co-operate with the trial Court and it was for the counsel to exhibit institutional responsibility for expeditious proceedings. 4. The matter relates to the proceedings in a civil suit; and the very maintainability of this intra-Court appeal remains questionable. This apart, we could only express dismay that instead of co-operating with the trial Court concerned, a writ petition was filed seeking directions for disposal of the suit within a timeframe. 5. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that it was for the counsel and the parties to co-operate with the Court concerned to ensure expeditious proceedings and there was no reason for the High Court to issue any direction in this matter. Such a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could have only been considered as misconceived, particularly when nothing specific was forthcoming for seeking such generalized directions. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly dismissed the petition. 6. With the observations foregoing, this intra-Court appeal stands dismissed.