JUDGMENT : Krishna S. Dixit, J. Petitioner a decree holder has filed Execution Case No.103/2015; the Judgment and decree in his O.S.No.166/2008 was obtained on 24.04.2010 as evidenced by Annexure-A. 2. The said Judgment and decree are put in implementation in Execution Case No.103/2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur. Being thoroughly disappointed with the delay in execution process, he has knocked at the doors of this Court in its writ jurisdiction seeking a direction for early disposal of the said case. 3. The learned HCGP A.R.Rodigues on request having accepted notice for the respondent-Judgment debtors submits that, they have no objection for the early disposal of the Execution Case; since the Courts are over burdened, there may be some delay in the processing of the matter, but that by itself will not give a cause of action to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction. So submitting, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Right to speedy trial, be it civil or criminal is recognized by the Indian Judiciary since long; the Privy Council in the case of General Manager of the Raj Durbhanga Vs. Coomar Ramaput Singh, 0 20 ER 912, had observed that " ..the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree." 5. What the Privy Council observed more than a century ago continues to be true even now. The over burdening of the Court is a feeble justification for delaying justice. An important stanza in the Magna Carta of 1215 reads . "To none shall we sell, To none shall we deny, To none shall we delay Right or Justice". This historic injunction of English law is legal mandate in our System too. The legal position as to the speedy dispensation of justice in this country cannot be different from what is echoed in the above stanza of that great historical document. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of mandamus issues to the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur, to hear and dispose off petitioner's Execution Case No.103/2015, within an outer limit of nine months and accordingly a compliance report shall be filed by the learned Judge, in the Registry of this Court. 7. In computing the period of nine months as fixed above the adjournment period availed by the plaintiff's side, hereafter shall be excluded.