Disposed

Gaya Prasad v. Lal Bahadur Yadav and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2026A227/13017/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction directing the Civil Judge to decide a suit pending since 2022 within a stipulated period. Applying the Supreme Court’s direction that constitutional courts ordinarily should not fix time-bound schedules for disposal of cases in other courts, the High Court declined to expedite the proceedings and disposed of the writ petition, while permitting the petitioner to seek expeditious disposal before the court concerned.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner may move an application for expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 107 of 2022 before the court concerned; the Registrar (Compliance) must communicate the order to that court within 48 hours.

Gaya Prasad Vs Lal Bahadur Yadav and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13017 of 2026

¶3

Gaya Prasad

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Lal Bahadur Yadav And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jaysingh Yadav,	Vikas Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

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

¶9

"I. Direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Magistrate Duddhi Sonbhadra to decide Original Suit no. 107/2022 (Gaya Prasad versus Lalbahadur and others) pending since 21.11.2022 before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Magistrate Duddhi Sonbhadra within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

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 Constitutional 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 :-

¶11

" 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 ;"

¶12

The Division Bench of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba,

¶13

A227 No. 13017 of 2026

¶14

¶15

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:-

¶16

"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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

In view of above, this Court declines to direct the court below to expedite the proceedings pending before it.

¶20

The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 107 of 2022 before the court concerned who will decide the same on the basis of pendency of cases before it and also

¶21

A227 No. 13017 of 2026

¶22

¶23

keeping in mind the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶24