Dara Prajapati vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Distt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Dara Prajapati vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Distt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with no direction for expeditious disposal; liberty to petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency before the trial court/competent authority — if moved within two weeks, the trial court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within two weeks thereafter, and if prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out, pass suitable order in accordance with law; merits left unexamined.

Issue for consideration

Whether, absent any extraordinary circumstance disclosed in the writ petition, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court (respondent No.1) to decide the pending stay application and objection in original case no. 1335/2025 (Om Prakash v. Dara Prajapati) expeditiously.

Court's answer

Trial courts/competent authorities are burdened with heavy dockets; directions to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously cannot be passed in a routine manner, and only where some extraordinary circumstance is made out is it appropriate for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227.

Ratio / Principle

In the present case no such circumstance has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

Liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority; if such application is moved within two weeks, the trial court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶22
If the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out, it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5 — Alok Mathur, J. | Matter Under Article 227 No. 944 of 2026 (Dara Prajapati v. Civil Judge (J.D.), Distt. Ambedkar Nagar & Anr.), disposed of 24.03.2026. Petitioner sought direction to respondent No.1 for early disposal of the stay application and objection in original case no. 1335/2025 (Om Prakash v. Dara Prajapati), computerized Case No. UPAN60012712025, pending before Civil Judge (J.D.P), Ambedkar Nagar — suit for permanent injunction instituted by opposite party no.2 on 23.05.2025, same-day exparte interim order restraining petitioner from taking possession of the disputed property; written statement filed 12.01.2026 yet stay application undecided despite listing. HELD: (i) trial courts burdened with heavy dockets — no routine, out-of-turn Article 227 direction for expeditious disposal absent extraordinary circumstance; (ii) no such circumstance disclosed here, so no interference; (iii) liberty granted to move an urgency-detailing application before the trial court — if moved within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously (say, within two weeks thereafter), and a suitable order passed in accordance with law if urgency is prima facie made out; (iv) merits of neither party examined. Themes: Article 227; expeditious/out-of-turn disposal; stay application; exparte interim restraining order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 944 of 2026

Dara Prajapati

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Civil Judge (J.D.) Distt. Ambedkar Nagar And Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhiraj Chaurasiya, Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 5

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent, is dispensed with.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No.1 for early disposal of the stay application and objection filed in original case no. 1335/2025 (Om Prakash Vs. Dara Prajapati) computerized Case No. UPAN60012712025, which is pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.P), District Ambedkar Nagar.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner before the Civil (J.D.), District Ambedkar Nagar on 23.05.2025, on which exparte interim order has been passed on the same day and the petitioner has been restrained to take possession over the disputed property.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has also filed his written statement on 12.01.2026 but the stay application filed in the suit has not been decided. Accordingly as pryaer has been made to expedite the same.

It is urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent No. 1, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

A227 No. 944 of 2026

2

Considering the fact that the Original case was filed in 2025 of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the writ petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously.

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievances before the trial court/competent authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the aforesaid matter. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court/competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within two weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

March 24, 2026

Muk

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench