The petitioner sought directions for the expeditious disposal of a pending civil suit by the Civil Judge. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court declined to grant such relief, holding that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions merely to expedite suit hearings, as this creates a preferential category of litigants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5687
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 212 of 2025
Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Keshari Respondent :- Brijesh Chaubey And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"(a) Issue an order or direction, directing the Learned Civil Judge Junior division, F.T.C-I, Varanasi, to decide the, pending Civil Suit no. 763 of 2013 (Smt. Shanti Devi and Others Vs. Brijesh Chaubey and Others), expeditiously within specified period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, so that justice may be done."
"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.
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 mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.
For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."
Order Date :- 10.1.2025 V.S.Singh
Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a direction to a subordinate court to decide a pending civil suit within a specified period under Article 227.
Whether a writ petition filed solely for expediting the hearing of a pending suit is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaRelied on¶9
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
Mukesh Kumar Keshari
Brijesh Chaubey And 6 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
