Dismissed

Satish Kumar Garg v. Brijraj Singh and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025A227/168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 168 of 2025, Satish Kumar Garg v. Brijraj Singh & 6 Others, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal J., decided 27.1.2025; prayer for expedition of Original Suit No. 906 of 2005 before Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No. 10 Kanpur Nagar; reliance on High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of UP (2024) 6 SCC 267 (para 47.3) and Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba

What the court decided

AI extract

Satish Kumar Garg vs Brijraj Singh and 6 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13350

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 168 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Garg Respondent :- Brijraj Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"(a) to direct the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar to decide the pending Original Suit No. 906 of 2005 (Satish Kumar Versus Brijraj Singh) expeditiously within a period to be determined by this Hon'ble Court;"

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No. 906 of 2025, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Kanpur 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 disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent

¶12

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 :- 27.1.2025 V.S.Singh

¶19

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

Satish Kumar Garg v. Brijraj Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satish Kumar Garg v. Brijraj Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nazim vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs Ramharakh and 21 Others

Ramesh Chandra vs Radha Charan and 2 Others

Daulatram and Another vs Smt. Jarawati and 2 Others

Omveer Chauhan vs Rohit Chauhan and Another

Patlu vs State of U.P.