Dilip Rav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1183

Court No. - 9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16281 of 2024

Petitioner :- Dilip Rav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kusum Mishra,Laxmi Kant Tripathi,Seema Kushwaha

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"A order or direction in the nature of directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the OS no. 882 of 2020, Uma Shankar versus Mohan Prasad Agrahari and others pending before the respondent No. 2, Civil Judge (JD) Mirzapur within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble court, as early as possible."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No.882 of 2020 pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mirzapur.

¶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 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

¶12

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 petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Kushal

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Rav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Rav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manindra Nath Singh vs Kunwar Siddharth Singh and 4 Others

Prem Shankar Srivastava vs Registrar General High Court and Another

Mangu Lal @ Brijesh Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Bhagirathi Since Deceased and 8 Others vs Ramroop (Since Deceased) and 27 Others

Pooran Chand Gupta vs Shashi Kiran and 5 Others

Nagar Panchayat Pipiganj Dictrict Gorakhpur through Its Chairman vs Purshottam Prasad