Disposed¶15

Poonam Kumari v. Subhawati Devi

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025A227/1142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Alok Mathur, J.), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 1142 of 2025, decided 5.2.2025. Keywords: Article 227; expeditious disposal; out-of-turn direction; extraordinary circumstance; heavy dockets; Succession Suit No. 301 of 2023; Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi; liberty to file urgency application; two weeks / three weeks timeline; petition disposed of, prayer rejected; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; prayer for a direction of expeditious disposal rejected, but liberty granted to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the trial court within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within three weeks thereafter. ¶15

Poonam Kumari vs Subhawati Devi — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide Succession Suit No. 301 of 2023 expeditiously, i.e., whether any extraordinary circumstance warranting such interference has been made out.

¶10

Court's answer

Trial courts are burdened with heavy dockets and directions cannot be passed in a routine manner to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously; only where some extraordinary circumstance is made out is it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In the present case no extraordinary circumstance has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227, hence the prayer sought by the petitioner is rejected.

¶11

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the trial court and move an application detailing urgency; if such application is moved within two weeks, the trial court shall consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within three weeks thereafter, and if prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out, pass suitable orders thereon.ratio¶13
The Court has not examined the case of either party on merit; the court concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition seeking expeditious disposal of Succession Suit No. 301 of 2023 (Poonam Kumari v. Aam Janta) pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi. Held: trial courts labour under heavy dockets and directions for out-of-turn, expeditious disposal cannot be issued as a matter of routine; such extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 may be exercised only where some extraordinary circumstance is made out. None was disclosed here, the suit having been filed in 2023 with notices issued and proceedings underway. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the trial court within two weeks, which the trial court shall decide expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, and pass suitable orders if prima facie satisfied that urgency is made out. Merits left untouched.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16647

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1142 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Poonam Kumari Respondent :- Subhawati Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajneesh Shukla,Ravindra Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Succession Suit No. 301 of 2023 - Poonam Kumari Vs. Aam Janta, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, considers and decides the aforesaid case in time bound manner.

¶10

Considering the fact that the suit was filed in 2023 of which notices have been issued and proceedings are underway, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously.

¶11

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial Courts are burdened under heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial Court to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extraordinary circumstance is made out, only when it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievance before the trial Court who after looking into the urgency as well as docket situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the suit proceedings. In the present case no such circumstance has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the prayer as sought by the petitioner

¶12

is rejected.

¶13

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the trial Court and move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid application moved before the trial Court. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, prefrably, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial Court is prima facie satisified that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable orders thereon.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 5.2.2025 A. Verma

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Poonam Kumari v. Subhawati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Kumari v. Subhawati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeet vs Birbal and 24 Others

Majnu Harijan vs Arun Kumar Yadav

Rekha vs Smt. Munifa and 4 Others

Janardan Singh vs Smt. Usha Rajpoot

Pradeep Kumar vs Bhonu Yadav and 5 Others

Smt Triveni Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another