Dismissed

Shivshyam Singh and 2 Others v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and 24 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A227/14855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this Article 227 petition seeking a direction for early disposal of a civil suit. Relying on Ali Shad Usmani (2015 ADJ 250), the bench held that directing subordinate courts on disposal timelines is inappropriate and lies within the trial judge's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for expeditious disposal of Civil Suit No. 127/2021 dismissed.

Shivshyam Singh and 2 Others vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185088

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14855 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shivshyam Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi And 24 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Mishra,Vinod Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mirzapur. (Annexure NO.2), in Original Suit No. 127/2021 "Shakuntala vs. Shivshyam and others", within the stipulated period may be fixed by this Hon'ble court."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No. 127 of 2021, pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mirzapur.

¶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), 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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 :- 26.11.2024 Sharad/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivshyam Singh and 2 Others v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and 24 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshyam Singh and 2 Others v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and 24 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

Similar cases

Jai Narayan Prasad vs Vrindavan Lal Gautam (v.L. Gautam) Executive Engineer

Ramchander Deceased and 3 Others vs Punvasi Bind and 28 Others

Faisal Siddiqui and 5 Others vs Mustafeejulahaq Urf Babar and Another

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs Subhadra and 2 Others

Ramaasre vs Dayaram and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar and Another vs Smt. Munni Devi