Dismissed¶17

Nirjala v. Vindra and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2025A227/2299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited disposal of civil suit refused; Article 227 petition dismissed by Allahabad High Court (19.3.2025). Keywords: expedition/time-bound disposal; constitutional courts refrain from fixing timelines (SC para 47.3, (2024) 6 SCC 267); Ali Shad Usmani 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB); Original Suit No. 168 of 2016; Civil Judge (S.D.) Mau; Nirjala vs. Vindra; prioritisation left to trial court.

What did the court decide?

Following the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (para 47.3) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani, the Court declines to grant the relief of expedited/time-bound disposal of the suit; prioritisation of cases is left to the court where they are pending. ¶16

Nirjala vs Vindra and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39358

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2299 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Nirjala Respondent :- Vindra And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh,Anil Kumar Yadav,Shivam Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i. Issue, an order or direction in the suitable nature expediting the hearing of Suit No. 168 of 2016 (Nirjala Devi & another Vs. Vindra & others), pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), District Mau and to direct the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), District Mau to decide the Suit No. 168 of 2016 (Nirjala Devi & another Vs. Vindra & others) within stipulated period of time as may be fixed 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. 168 of 2016, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), DistrictMau.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶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 :- 19.3.2025 V.S.Singh

¶19

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

Nirjala v. Vindra and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirjala v. Vindra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Munni and 14 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shakuntala and 4 Others vs M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited and 3 Others

Sataya Narayan Yadav and 6 Others vs Smt. Inari Devi and Another

Anoop Kumar Paswan vs State of U.P. Ad 4 Others

Gaje Singh and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. and 3 Others