Dismissed¶17

Meena v. Irshad and Another

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025A227/1636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Article 227 matter No. 1636 of 2025, decided 19.2.2025 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.). Petition by Meena for expedited disposal of Case No.344 of 2022 (Irshad Vs. Dilshad And Another) before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh. Court relied on High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2024) 6 SCC 267, para 47.3, and Ali Shad Usmani (2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)); held constitutional courts should not fix time-bound disposal schedules except exceptionally; writ petition dismissed. Keywords: expeditious disposal; time-bound schedule; prioritising disposal; Civil Judge Azamgarh.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for expedited disposal of Case No.344 of 2022 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh was declined. ¶17

Meena vs Irshad and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24147

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1636 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Meena Respondent :- Irshad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amaresh Yadava

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i) direct the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh to decide the proceedings of Case No.344 of 2022 (Irshad Vs. Dilshad And Another) Pending before it, expeditiously within a short period. So that Justice may be done with the Petitioner."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Case No.344 of 2022, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh.

¶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 judgments 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 :- 19.2.2025 SK Goswami

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meena v. Irshad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena v. Irshad and Another

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

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

Deepak Gupta vs Sapna Gupta (Unsound Mind)

Smt Manju Lata Yadav vs Narendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Ompal Singh and 5 Others

Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch vs M/S Kalyani Industries and 9 Others

Malti Devi and 4 Others vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal South Prayagraj and 3 Others