IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that respondent No. 3 filed a suit for possession while the petitioner proceeded to file a suit for specific performance. The respondent No. 3 moved respondent No. 1 for a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the suit for possession expeditiously. The same was accepted and respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 26-9-1997 was directed to decide the suit within a period of 2 months. The petitioner took exception to this order and challenged the same through this Constitutional petition, which was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 3 alone has appeared while the others are proceeded ex parte.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1 without hearing the petitioner and without giving reasons, lt is added that the order was without jurisdiction, and discriminatory because it is not clear why respondent No. 2 issued such direction in one case.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that earlier on 3-4-1997 respondent No. 1 had directed the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously within 3 months but in the meanwhile, a civil revision was filed in the High Court and the proceedings were stayed, therefore, the direction could not be given effect e It is argued that the reasons have been given in the earlier order that the order has been passed on the administrative side and it is not a Judicial, order. The learned counsel, however, frankly conceded that if the petitioner wants to have expeditious decision of its suit then his client has no objection.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The District Judge has powers suo moto and otherwise under section 115 CPC but in the present case the matter was beyond his jurisdiction and the appeal or revision would lie only to this Court, therefore, he was not well-advised to issue direction, more so without hearing the petitioner. Moreover, after the addition of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act all authorities even exercising executive Flowers are tender the legal obligation to give reasons in support of such order. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to uphold the impugned order.
5. This is not end of the matter, this Court has ample powers both under section 115 CPC and Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to issue such direction to the subordinate Courts both original and appellate. The parties have right to expect disposal of their causes at the earliest and they can move the Superior Courts for direction in this behalf. The Courts are earnestly doing their best to dispose of the causes expeditiously and such desire is respected, therefore, in exercise of suo motu powers I direct the Trial Court to decide both the suits between the parties together and expeditiously in accordance with law by 23rd December, 1997 even if it has to hold day to day proceedings. The trial Court shall consider the request of the either party for consolidation of the suits in accordance with law.
6. This petition is disposed of with the above directions.