In a matter under Article 227, the Single Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer to direct the Small Judge Gorakhpur to expedite disposal of a pending plaint suit, relying on the Division Bench precedent that such directions are inappropriate.
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. - 7178 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajesh Verma Respondent :- Om Prakash And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) direct the Prescribed authority Gorakhpur/ Small Judge Gorakhpur to decide the P.A. Suit No. 27 of 2018 (Smt. Sushma Verma and others vs. Om Prakash and others) under Section 21(1)(A) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 within stipulated time bound period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of P.A. Suit No. 27 of 2018 (Smt. Sushma Verma and others vs. Om Prakash and others) pending in the court of Small Judge Gorakhpur.
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 :- 6.12.2021 V.S.Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can direct the subordinate court to decide a pending civil suit within a stipulated time period under Section 21(1)(A) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972?
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)
Rajesh Verma
Om Prakash And 10 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
