Dismissed

Nripendr Singh v. Yogendra and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025A227/563/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 227, the High Court refused to direct the trial court to decide a pending civil suit within a stipulated period, relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents that discourage time-bound directions to subordinate courts.

What did the court decide?

The High Court refused the prayer for a direction to the trial court to decide the pending suit within a stipulated period.

Nripendr Singh vs Yogendra and 5 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9890

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 563 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Nripendr Singh Respondent :- Yogendra And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhavisya Sharma,Manish Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"i. to direct the trial court to decide the Case No. 'Original suit' 725 of 2019, Nripendr Singh versus Yogendra and others, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bansgaon Gorakhpur, at the earliest within a short stipulated period as to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, during pendency of this petition before this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit' 725 of 2019, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bansgaon 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

¶12

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.

¶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 :- 21.1.2025 SK Goswami

¶19

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

Nripendr Singh v. Yogendra and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nripendr Singh v. Yogendra and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Raj Textiles through Its Prop. Nadeem Ahmad vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal through Its Chairperson Allahabad and 2 Others

Shiv Prasad and 2 Others vs Rajrani

Seema Pandey vs Sudhir Pandey and 8 Others

Prashant Kumar vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Allahabad and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja Rajgadiya vs Shri Gaurav Sondhi and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar vs Mst. Ramwati Devi (Since Deceased) and 5 Others