The petitioner sought a direction under Article 227 for the expeditious disposal of a pending civil suit. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents prohibiting time-bound disposal directions, the Court dismissed the petition.
Relief for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 924 of 2011 dismissed.
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:9860
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 542 of 2025
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- Mst. Ramwati Devi (Since Deceased) And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"(i). issue a petition, order or direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura to decide the Suit No. 924 of 2011 (Mst. Ramwati Devi Vs. Vinod Kumar and others) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
"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 :- 21.1.2025 SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a direction under Article 227 to decide a civil suit within a stipulated period.
Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition for the expeditious hearing of a civil suit pending before a subordinate court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali IstebaFollowed¶9
Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersFollowed¶14
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Kumar
Mst. Ramwati Devi (Since Deceased) And 5 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Sk Goswami
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
