The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to expedite the hearing of a pending civil suit, relying on a precedent that prohibits such interference with the trial court's discretion regarding suit disposal timelines.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:171147
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11055 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- Smt Madhu Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhand Pratap Singh,Shobhit Yadav
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"Issue a order or direction, direct the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Fatehpur to ensure the hearing of Original Suit No. 390 of 2022 (Mahesh Kumar and another Vs. Smt. Madhu Singh and Another), pending before him, is expedited pending disposal of the present petition expeditiously within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
"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), DistrictAzamgarh. 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."
Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Kushal
Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a direction to subordinate courts for the expeditious hearing or disposal of a pending civil suit.
Whether the petition for expedited disposal of a civil suit should be allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstevaFollowed¶9
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
Mahesh Kumar And Another
Smt Madhu Singh And Another
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
