Dismissed

Murli Prasad Jaiswal and 3 Others v. Bhola Prasad Jaiswal and 6 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2025A227/4130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 prayed for a direction to expedite a pending civil suit before the Village Court. The High Court dismissed the petition relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents prohibiting time-bound disposal directions in ordinary cases.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to cost.

Murli Prasad Jaiswal and 3 Others vs Bhola… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69955

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4130 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Murli Prasad Jaiswal And 3 Others Respondent :- Bhola Prasad Jaiswal And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Praksah

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"a) issue order or direction, directing the learned court to decide issue direction, to the Village Court Jamaniya District Ghazipur to decide the Original Suit No.626 of 2005 "Murli (Deceased and others Vs Bhola Deceased and others within a stipulated period."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioners have prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No.626 of 2005, pending before the Village Court Jamaniya District Ghazipur.

¶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 judgments 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 :- 2.5.2025 SK Goswami

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Murli Prasad Jaiswal and 3 Others v. Bhola Prasad Jaiswal and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Prasad Jaiswal and 3 Others v. Bhola Prasad Jaiswal and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupnath vs Shri Brijesh Kumar,Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia

Reeta Devi and 3 Others vs Ganga Prasad

Swayam Prakash Tiwari @ Svany Prakash vs Ram Adhin Singh and 3 Others

Indresh vs Surendra Kumar Tiwari Secretary Basic Education Board

Manoj Kumar and Another vs Smt. Rani and 14 Others

Smt. Urmila Devi and 3 Others vs Shahid and Another