Disposed¶56

Murugesan v. Jeyabalan

Madras HC2 Sept 2025CRP/3934/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy disposal / time-bound direction refused; Article 227 civil revision petition; plaintiff sought expedition of O.S.No.102 of 2024, IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Ponneri; discrimination against other litigants; selective picking of cases; imminent urgency alone justifies priority; constitutional courts to refrain from fixing disposal timelines except in exceptional circumstances; prioritisation best left to court where cases pending; suit directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition disposed of with a direction to the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri to dispose of O.S.No.102 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible; no time-bound schedule fixed; no costs. ¶56

Murugesan Vs Jeyabalan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should direct the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Ponneri to dispose of O.S.No.102 of 2024 within a stipulated time (speedy disposal sought by the plaintiff).

¶24

Court's answer

The High Court cannot issue directions for speedy disposal of a case unless there is a justification or acceptable reasons for issuing such directions.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Applying the ratio in S.Baby v. S.Sakkubai Ammal and Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra, fixing a time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending therein is not warranted; the Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board and ensure disposal within a reasonable period of time.

¶49

Key takeaways

The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri, shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible (no fixed time-bound schedule imposed); with these observations the civil revision petition stands disposed of, with no costs.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Jothiraman J.) — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 2024 (IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Ponneri) seeking a direction for speedy/time-bound disposal of the suit. HELD: The High Court cannot issue directions for speedy disposal unless there is justification or acceptable reasons. Following S.Baby v. S.Sakkubai Ammal, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674 (paras 11-12: indiscriminate speedy-disposal directions discriminate against other litigants; only imminent urgency/public interest warrants priority) and Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 899 (quoting High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267, para 47.3: constitutional courts should, in the ordinary course, refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts and may do so only in exceptional circumstances), fixing a time-bound schedule for the court below was not warranted; the court seized of the cases is to regulate its own procedure and ensure disposal within a reasonable period. The trial court was directed to dispose of O.S.No.102 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible. CRP disposed of; no costs.

¶1

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶7

Murugesan S/o.Natesa Chettiar, Chandathur Village, Mailpatti Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot District. Now residing at No.4, Maragatham Nagar, Podanur Road, Chettipalayam, Coimbatore - 641 201.

¶8

Petitioner(s)/Plaintiff(s)

¶9

¶10

1.Jeyabalan S/o.Padmanaban, D.No.34, Visaka Thottam, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶11

2.Ramesh Babu S/o.Vittal, D.No.199A, Arul Nagar, 1^st Cross Street, Soorapttu, Chennai - 600 066.

¶12

3.Indhu W/o.Nethaji, D.No.3/612, Pugalendhi Road, Mugaper East, Chennai - 600 037.

¶13

4.The Sub Registrar

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶17

Ambattur Sub Registrar Office, Gopalsamy Street, Ram Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053.

¶18

5.The State represented by the District Collector Tiruvallur District, Jeya Nagar, Tiruvallur - 602 001.

¶19

Respondent(s)/Defendant(s)

¶20

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶21

India to expedite the proceedings in O.S.No.102 of 2024 pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Ponneri and to dispose of the same within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ananth For RR 4 & 5: Mrs.R.Anitha, Special Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Ponneri, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present civil revision petition.

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would

¶29

submit that the suit is of the year 2024 and the respondents/defendants are dragging on the proceedings of the suit for the past one and a half year. He would further submit that the speedy disposal of the suit proceedings is just and necessary.

¶30

It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such

¶31

directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674 , wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:

¶32

“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶36

disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.

¶37

12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”

¶38

It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶39

Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶40

reported in 2024 INSC 899 , wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶41

“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

C.R.P.No.3934 of 2025

¶45

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

¶46

“47.3. 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 timebound 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;” (underline supplied)

¶47

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.”

¶48

By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing

¶49

a time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to

¶50

ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.

¶51