Dismissed¶17

Vishnu Kumar Banarjee and 2 Others v. Sarad Khandelwal

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025A227/3569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition seeking early/time-bound disposal of civil suit; Allahabad High Court declines direction, citing High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (2024) 6 SCC 267 (Constitution Bench, para 47.3) and Ali Shad Usmani (2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)); Suit Case No. 2093 of 2021, Sarad Khandelwal versus Vishnu Kumar and others, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 9, Gorakhpur; Section 9 CPC; Section 38 Specific Relief Act; petition dismissed; order dated 11.4.2025.

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), this Court declines to grant the relief prayed for, i.e., a direction for time-bound disposal of the pending suit. ¶16

Vishnu Kumar Banarjee and 2 Others vs Sarad Khandelwal — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53548

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3569 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Vishnu Kumar Banarjee And 2 Others Respondent :- Sarad Khandelwal Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajjan Singh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"a) Issue a direction to learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.-9, Gorakhpur, to consider and decide the Case No. 2093 of 2021 (Sarad Khandelwal Versus Vishnu Kumar and others), Under Section 9 CPC, read with Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, within time bound period as this Hon'ble Court to this petition."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Case No. 2093 of 2021, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 9, Gorakhpur.

¶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 :- 11.4.2025 V.S.Singh

¶19

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

Vishnu Kumar Banarjee and 2 Others v. Sarad Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Banarjee and 2 Others v. Sarad Khandelwal

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

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

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

Jagdish vs Netrapal and 2 Others

Society of Advanced Studies vs Shri Balaji Buildtech Partners Firm and Another

Yogendra and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Swati Gupta vs Krishna Kumar Gupta and 16 Others