Rambachan vs Harilal (Since Deceased) and 15 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11739

Court No. - 9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 785 of 2025

Petitioner :- Rambachan Respondent :- Harilal (Since Deceased) And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

"(i) kindly, issue an appropriate direction or pass an order directing the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, Azamgarh to dispose the Original Suit No. 1058 of 2001 (Harilal and others Vs. Rambachan and others) expeditiously as possible, and within such shortest possible timeframe, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Original Suit No. 1058 of 2001 pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) City, Azamgarh.

¶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

¶12

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 :- 23.1.2025 Shekhar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambachan v. Harilal (Since Deceased) and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambachan v. Harilal (Since Deceased) and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Fill and Drive through Its Partner Samar Garg vs Shri Siya Ram Verma, Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicles Department

Manish Pratap Singh vs Collector/District Magistrate Farrukhabad and Another

Nripendr Singh vs Yogendra and 5 Others

Jai Prakash vs Indrajeet and 7 Others

Durga Dutta vs Chandra Pal and 2 Others

Mohd. Akram and Another vs H.D.F.C. Bank Civil Line Bijnor through Branch Manager and 6 Others