Disposed

Manoj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025A227/620/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition seeking expedited disposal of pending civil suit; stipulated-period direction refused in view of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB); discretionary direction to conclude Civil Suit No. 545 of 2024 (Varanasi) as expeditiously as possible; no merits assessment; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court concerned to conclude and decide Civil Suit No. 545 of 2024 strictly in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties and subject to the cooperati

Manoj Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 7… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18256

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 620 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Manoj Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Adarsh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶7

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to direct the court below i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Havali Varanasi to decide the case bearing Suit No. 545 of 2024 (Manoj Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Havali, Varanasi since 04.03.2024 within stipulated period.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the civil suit on 04.03.2024 which is pending decision till date.

¶9

However, it is worth to mention that no such direction can be issued in view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba; 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra) 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 hereunder:-

¶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 disability 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.

¶12

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to conclude and decide the Civil Suit No. 545 of 2024 (Manoj Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) strictly in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties and subject to the cooperation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in case, there is no other legal impediment.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

It is hereby clarified that this Court has not applied its mind to the claim of the petitioners on merits nor has made any observation in this regard.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Shivani

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni Devi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Harishchandra Alias Massan vs State of U.P. and Another

Nizamuddin and 4 Others vs Mohammad Ahmad and 5 Others

Matadeen vs Parvati Devi and 6 Others

Soni Devi vs Chandrika and 4 Others