In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought a direction to the Civil Judge to expeditiously decide a civil suit. The court, relying on a Division Bench precedent, refused to issue such a direction as it deems no order expediting suit disposal can be granted under Article 227.
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. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6574 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Respondent :- Rama Mister And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra,Akanksha Mishra
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) kindly, direct the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur to decide the SCC Suit No. 9 of 1979 (Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Dharmshala Vs. Rama Mister and Others) most expeditiously and within such shortest possible time-frame which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case;"
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of SCC Suit No. 9 of 1979 (Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Dharmshala Vs. Rama Mister and Others) pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur.
The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-
"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.
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 disablilty 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.
For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."
In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.
The writ petitions is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.11.2021 V.S.Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can direct the subordinate Civil Court to expedite the disposal of a suit pending before it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaFollowed¶8
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir
Rama Mister And 6 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
