Dismissed¶17

Smt. Suman Shukla and 2 Others v. Harinayan Dubey (Now Deceased) and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025A227/2511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Early disposal of civil suit; writ petition under Article 227; mandamus to trial court for time-bound decision refused; constitutional courts to refrain from fixing time-bound schedule except in exceptional circumstances; reliance on High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2024) 6 SCC 267 para 47.3 and Ali Shad Usmani 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB); O.S. No. 122 of 2014 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur; petition dismissed on 10.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani (supra), the Court declined to grant the relief prayed for, i.e., a direction for early disposal of the pending suit. ¶16

Smt. Suman Shukla and 2 Others vs Harinayan Dubey… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52506

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2511 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Suman Shukla And 2 Others Respondent :- Harinayan Dubey (Now Deceased) And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fatehpur to decide the O.S. No. 122/14 (Harinarayan Dubey and others Vs. Smt Suman Shukla and others) which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fatehpur within time."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No. 122 of 2014, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur.

¶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 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 :- 10.4.2025 V.S.Singh

¶19

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

Smt. Suman Shukla and 2 Others v. Harinayan Dubey (Now Deceased) and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suman Shukla and 2 Others v. Harinayan Dubey (Now Deceased) 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

Rajaram vs Smt. Shashiprabha Kushwaha and 2 Others

Raghuvir vs Kishan Singh and 3 Others

Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs Kushlawati and 9 Others

Bajrangpuri Ram Leela Committee, Situated vs Dharmendra Sharma and 6 Others

Jagdish vs Netrapal and 2 Others

Amar Singh vs Ram Sajeevan Yadav and 3 Others