Allahabad High Court
Punit Kumar Srivastava vs Ramkumari Devi (Since Deceased) And 5 ... on 1 December, 2023
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227987
Court No. - 44
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12193 of 2023
Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- Ramkumari Devi (Since Deceased) And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Court No. 7, Gorakhpur to decide the Original Suit No. 5391 of 2017 within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the plaintiff of the Suit No. 5391 of 2017 which has been instituted for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement to Sale dated 8.9.2014 executed by the defendant/respondent No. 1 in his favour in respect of Arazi No. 100/0.201, Arazi No. 207/0.295, Arazi No. 41/367/0.106 situate at village Hardiya, Tappa Haveli, Pargana Bhauapar, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. The defendant/respondent No. 1 did not appear in the proceedings pursuant to the notices issued and in the meantime expired. Her heirs defendant/respondent No. 1/1 to 1/5 have been substituted and the defendant/respondent Nos. 1/3 and 1/5 have put in appearance on 20.3.2020. Service of notice upon the rest of the defendant/respondents has been held to be sufficient through publication on 19.5.2022. No written statement has been filed by the defendant/respondents till date despite last opportunity being extended to them till date. The suit is at the stage of framing of the issues. No effective progress is being made in the suit which is pending consideration since 2017 on account of delaying tactics of the defendant/respondents. In such circumstances, it is prayed that expeditious disposal of the suit within a time frame be ordered.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
From the perusal of the order sheet of the proceedings, which have been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the petition, the submissions advanced by learned counsel and recorded hereinabove, are borne out. The suit is pending at the stage of filing of written statement.
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 hereunder:-
"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 disability 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."
An earlier Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Km. Shobha Bose V. Judge Small Causes & Ors. reported in 2011 (88) ALR 850, has held that the power to direct expeditious disposal of Suit or any other Cases should be exercised sparingly in extra ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"3. The prayer made in this petition for expeditious disposal of the suit/revision, in sum and substance, is nothing but a prayer for out of turn hearing of the suit. We are unaware of the docket of the Judge, Small Causes Court in seisin of the matter. We also do not know that suits of earlier years in which old ladies figure, are pending or not. However, it is common knowledge that thousands of cases instituted earlier by persons more aged than the petitioner are unfortunately pending in the Court. It is systemic delay. It is further common knowledge that direction of the nature, if granted, affects the working of the Court and the Judges, in seisin of such cases, remain ordinarily occupied with only those cases in which directions have been given for expeditious disposal and cases filed earlier gets ignored as those litigating from earlier years have no resources to approach this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It is further common knowledge that many of the Judges, because of sheer number of such directions, are unable to carry out these directions and subjected to contempt proceedings and even personally directed to appear in such proceedings. Such a prayer made in routine manner can not be granted without serious application of mind. It is high time that we must give serious thought to all these considerations before passing any order for expeditious disposal. We are not oblivion of the fact that this Court does possess power to direct early disposal of the case but as often said more the power greater the responsibility. We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced.
4. We hasten to add that even in such kind of cases, ordinarily this Court would relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the Court in seisin of the lis to take appropriate decision, as it is that Court which can consider the matter in totality of the circumstances."
In view of the above and considering the stage of the suit proceedings, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner at this stage.
However, from the perusal of the order sheet of the proceedings, it is borne out that the application for interim injunction (7C) filed on 6.9.2017 has yet not been decided and numerous dates have been fixed awaiting the appearance of the defendants. The service upon the defendants has been held to be sufficient after 5 years.
In the opinion of the Court, the Judge in seisin of the proceedings is required to take into consideration the conduct of the parties to the suit be it the plaintiff or the defendant. If the Judge finds that either of the parties is avoiding the suit proceedings or is unnecessarily adopting delaying tactics, he should impose heavy costs so that the proceedings are streamlined and delay in justice is avoided.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Court No. 7, Gorakhpur seized with the proceedings of the Original Suit No. 5391 of 2017 apprising it of the urgency for expeditious disposal of the proceedings and it is expected that the learned Civil Judge in seisin of the suit proceedings shall take appropriate decision thereon on the next date fixed or within a reasonable time.
Order Date :- 1.12.2023
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
