Petitioner sought a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi to decide Original Suit No. 299 of 2020 expeditiously. Following Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court precedents, the Court held it should not fix time-bound schedules for subordinate courts and dismissed the petition.
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:11979
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 332 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Respondent :- Indrajeet And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babita Shukla,Ram Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"Direct the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadohi to decide the case bearing Suit No. 299 of 2020; Jai Prakash vs. Indrajeet and others, within a stipulated period."
"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."
" 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;"
Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shiraz
Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ court can direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaRelied on¶3
2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶4
(2024) 6 SCC 267 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jai Prakash
Indrajeet
7 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
