Dismissed

Smt Mamta Gupta and Another v. Smt Rama Dubey

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024A227/14909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 sought a direction to expedite an injunction suit in a subordinate civil court. Relying on a Division Bench decision that generally prohibits such directions to avoid overburdening courts and ensuring equality of litigants, the High Court declined the prayer and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for expeditious hearing of Injunction Suit No. 806 of 2016 dismissed.

Smt Mamta Gupta and Another vs Smt Rama Dubey — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185793

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14909 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Mamta Gupta And Another Respondent :- Smt Rama Dubey Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"To issue appropriate order or direction exercising supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 of The Constitution of India directing to the Subordinate Court- Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.6 (ACMM-vi) Kanpur Nagar to expedite hearing and decide the Injunction Suit No. 806 of 2016 Smt. Rama Dubey Vs Smt. Mamta Gupta and others within in time bound period."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Injunction Suit No. 806 of 2016, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.6 (ACMM-vi) Kanpur Nagar.

¶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

¶12

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 :- 27.11.2024 SK Goswami

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Mamta Gupta and Another v. Smt Rama Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mamta Gupta and Another v. Smt Rama Dubey

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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs Subhadra and 2 Others

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

Ramaasre vs Dayaram and 3 Others

Prabhat Ranjan vs Allahabad Bank (Now Indian Bank) Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Marg Branch and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Devi vs Gyanendra Kumar Yadav

Smt. Abhilasha vs Satish Yadav and 8 Others