Dismissed

Dinesh Chand Mishra v. Rajesh Yadav and 13 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024A227/12544/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court dismissed the petition challenging the non-expeditious disposal of a civil suit. Relying on a Division Bench precedent that prohibits such directions to subordinate courts, the court denied the prayer for early disposal of suit No. 2068 of 2016.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for direction to expeditiously decide Original Suit No. 2068 of 2016 was denied. Petition dismissed.

Dinesh Chand Mishra vs Rajesh Yadav and 13… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168969

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12544 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Chand Mishra Respondent :- Rajesh Yadav And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"I. Issue a suitable order or direction, directing the Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 10, Deoria to decide the Original Suit No. 2068 of 2016 (Dinesh Chand Mishra Vs. Rajesh Yadav and others), within stipulated period or within time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of Original Suit No. 2068 of 2016 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Deoria.

¶9

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:-

¶10

"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,

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."

¶14

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.

¶15

The writ petitions is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 V.S.Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Chand Mishra v. Rajesh Yadav and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chand Mishra v. Rajesh Yadav and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramchander Deceased and 3 Others vs Punvasi Bind and 28 Others

Ajai Kumar and 4 Others vs Harendra and Another

Hazarat Maulana Ahmad Ali Society vs Nagar Palika Parishad Devband and 17 Others

Anand Kumar Sinha vs Ramendra Kumar Sinha and Another

M/S Seven Heaven Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs Up Power Corporation Ltd. and 4 Others

Shri Surendra Verma and 4 Others vs Ramanand Verma and 4 Others