Allahabad High Court
Kanhaiya @ Kanhai And 5 Others vs Smt Kusum Devi And Another on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2301 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya @ Kanhai And 5 Others
Respondent :- Smt Kusum Devi And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitdendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i direct the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC Varanasi to decide Original Suit No.961 of 1998 (Kanhaia alias Kanhai Versus Smt. Kusum Devi and others) as well as substitution application pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC Varanasi within stipulated period as pleased to have been fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Direct the defendants/respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and not to dispossesses the petitioner from the land in dispute and also restrained the defendant/respondents from selling or alienating the land and not to create any third party rights during the pendency of the Original Suit No.961 of 1998 (Kanhaia alias Kanhai Versus Smt. Kusum Devi and others)."
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of Suit No. 961 of 1998 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC Varanasi.
The Division Bench of this Court in case of 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:-
"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.
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.
For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."
In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.
The writ petitions is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2021
Kushal
