Sushila @ Sheela and Another vs Sulochana and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30264

Court No. - 9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2088 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sushila @ Sheela And Another Respondent :- Sulochana And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Shad Azam

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i) to issue a order or direction commanding the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Court no.25, District Azamgarh expeditiously decide the Original Suit No. 1093 of 2022 Sulochana & Another vs. Sushila @ Sheela & others pending since 04-05-2022."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No.1093 of 2022, pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Court no.25, District 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

¶12

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 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

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 SK Goswami

¶19

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

Sushila @ Sheela and Another v. Sulochana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila @ Sheela and Another v. Sulochana and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jauli Bharti vs Shiv Charan and 3 Others

Reena Devi vs Mahaveer

Shri Thakur Hanuman Ji Trust Nivkarori Tapasthali Baba Nivkarori Maharaj Nivkarori and 2 Others vs Sushil Kumar Dwivedi and 8 Others

Vishan Chandra Rastogi vs Munajir Hussain and Another

Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhullu vs Ram Bahadur and Another