The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Civil Judge, Chakiya, to decide a pending civil suit within a reasonable period. The single judge dismissed the petition, relying on a Division Bench precedent forbidding such directions for expediting civil suits.
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:189057
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14959 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jugal Respondent :- Smt Mantlesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Arju
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chakiya, Chandauli to decide the Civil Suit No. 85 of 2003; Yamuna Pandey and others vs. Kallu and others, filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chakiya, Chandauli within the reasonable period as may be fixed by this 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 :- 2.12.2024 Shiraz
Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ court can direct a subordinate civil court to decide a long-pending suit within a stipulated period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaApplied¶9
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
Jugal
Smt Mantlesh
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
