Disposed¶23

Dataram v. Hariom and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2025A227/10546/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited disposal of civil suit refused; no High Court direction to subordinate courts for stipulated-period decision; writ under Article 227 (and reference to Article 226); Permanent Injunction Suit No. 04 of 2021, Iglas, Aligarh, pending since 2021; Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) followed; preferential category of litigants; urgency discretion of trial judge; liberty to file application for expeditious disposal; petition disposed of, no costs mentioned.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal of Permanent Injunction Suit No. 04 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Iglas, Aligarh; on such an application the trial court shall pass an appropriate order within reasonable time. No direction fixing a stipulated period was issued.

Dataram Vs Hariom and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Iglas, Aligarh to decide Permanent Injunction Suit No. 04 of 2021 expeditiously within a stipulated period fixed by the High Court.

¶15

Court's answer

No direction can be issued to subordinate courts to decide a suit within a stipulated period; following the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani (supra), entertaining a writ petition merely to expedite the hearing of a suit places such litigants in a preferential category, leaves older cases to the normal channel, and would overburden civil courts with expedite requests.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal of the suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Iglas, Aligarh; in case such an application is moved, that court shall pass an appropriate order within reasonable time.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.), Matters under Article 227 No. 10546 of 2025, decided September 8, 2025: Writ petition filed by Dataram seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Iglas, Aligarh to decide Permanent Injunction Suit No. 04 of 2021 (Dataram v. Hariom and others, instituted 06.01.2021, pending since 2021) expeditiously within a stipulated period. Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB), the court held that no direction can be issued to subordinate courts to decide suits within a stipulated period, as such orders place petitioning litigants in a preferential category, leave cases of similar or greater antiquity to the normal channel, and would overburden civil courts with expedite requests; urgency must be left to the judicious discretion of the trial judge, particularly for senior citizens, differently abled persons and those suffering socio-economic disability. The writ petition was disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal before the trial court, which shall pass an appropriate order within reasonable time if such application is made.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10546 of 2025

¶3

Dataram

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Hariom And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Digvijay Tiwari :

¶9

Court No. - 9

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶13

"a) direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Iglas, Aligarh to decide the Permanent Injunction Suit No. 04 of 2021 (Dataram Vs. Hariom and Others) dated 06.01.2021 expeditiously within stipulated period as

¶14

From the perusal of order sheet, it appears that the aforesaid suit is pending since 2021 and several dates have been fixed in the matter.

¶15

Prayer made in this writ petition is that a direction be issued to the Court below i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Iglas, Aligarh to decide the aforesaid suit within the time framed as may be fixed by this Court.

¶16

No such direction can be issued in view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba; 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra) 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 hereunder:-

¶17

"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

¶18

A227 No. 10546 of 2025

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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 disability 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of finally, at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid suit before the Court concerned i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Iglas, Aligarh in accordance with law and in case, such an application is moved, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Iglas, Aligarh shall pass an appropriate order within reasonable time. September 8, 2025 S. Singh

¶24

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶25

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

Dataram v. Hariom and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dataram v. Hariom and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases