The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the trial court to decide a civil suit within a stipulated period, relying on a Division Bench holding that such directions create undue additional work in trial courts.
The prayer to issue a direction to decide the suit within stipulated period was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4519 of 2018
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Singh Respondent :- Vimala Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The prayer made in the present petition is to issue direction to the court below to decide the Original Suit No. 654 of 2014 (Vimala Devi & Others vs. Gyanendra Singh) within stipulated period.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani & others Vs. Ali Isteba & others reported in 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that this Court shall not ordinarily issue direction to the trial court to decide the suit in a time bound manner as it creates additional work in the trial court when oldest suits are pending.
Dismissed as such.
(Sunita Agarwal, J.)
Order Date :- 11.7.2018
Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a direction to the trial court to decide the pending civil suit within a stipulated period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani & others Vs. Ali Isteba & othersApplied¶7
2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
Gyanendra Singh
Vimala Devi
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
