Single Judge rejected petitioner's claim for expedited disposal of a pending civil suit and maintained status quo, relying on pre-2024 and 2024 precedents denying High Court authority to fix time-bound schedules for subordinate courts.
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:8791
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 503 of 2025
Petitioner :- Shiv Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- Rajrani Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakeel Ahmad Azmi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"(i) Direct the learned Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D) Kaushambi to expedite/decide the Original Suit No. 835/2017 within the stipulated period time by this Hon'ble Court. (Shiv Prasad and others Vs. Rajrani), District Kaushambi.
(ii) Issue a order or direction commanding and directing to respondent not interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs from the property in dispute and not created third party right and maintain the status-quo both party of land in question during the pendency of the present petition."
"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), District-Azamgarh. 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 :- 20.1.2025 V.S.Singh
Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction can be issued under Article 227 to a subordinate court to expedite the disposal of a pending original suit.
Whether the High Court should interfere in the peaceful possession of parties in dispute property during pendency of the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaDistinguished¶10
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersFollowed¶15
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267 · Who else cites this
Shiv Prasad And 2 Others
Rajrani
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
