Dismissed

Smt Manju Lata Yadav v. Narendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025A227/1257/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 sought a direction to the Family Court to conclude pending proceedings within a stipulated period. Relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents, the Court held that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending in other courts. The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Manju Lata Yadav vs Narendra Kumar Yadav and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23213

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1257 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Manju Lata Yadav Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i. To, direct the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to decide/conclude the original application no.1104 of 2024 (Manju Lata Yadav Vs. Narendra Kumar and others) pending before him within stipulated period as 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 Application No. 1104 of 2024, pending before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

The Division Bench of this Court in 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

Recently, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267 has held that Constitution Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. The Court further held that issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending. Relevant para 47.3 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder :-

¶15

" Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

¶16

In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) and Ali Shad Usmani (supra) , this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶17

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 V.S.Singh

¶19

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

Smt Manju Lata Yadav v. Narendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Manju Lata Yadav v. Narendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sangam Cold Storoge and Ice Plant and Another vs Central Bank of India through Its Authorized Officer and 5 Others

Shyam Babu Saran vs Kanchan Saran

Munna Agarwal @ Ram Krishan vs Sheshmani Gupta and Another

Suraj Singh vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Deepak Gupta vs Sapna Gupta (Unsound Mind)

Sitaram vs Mithai Lal and 3 Others