Allahabad High Court
Navnita Gupta vs Kandhaiya Lal Kesarwani on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147611
Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7483 of 2023
Petitioner :- Navnita Gupta
Respondent :- Kandhaiya Lal Kesarwani
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hardik Kishore,Ishir Sripat
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. On 17.07.2023 following order was passed by this Court :-
"1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Learned Additional District Judge-II, Allahabad to hear and decide the SCC suit No. 13 of 2018 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a fixed period."
2. It reveals from perusal of the record that earlier the same petitioner approached this Court by filing petition being Matter Under Article 227 No.6934 of 2021 (Navnita Gupta Vs. Kandhaiya Lal Kesarwani). The said petition was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 29.11.2021. The order is reproduced below:-
"1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Learned Additional District Judge-II, Allahabad to hear and decide the SCC suit No.13 of 2018 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a fixed period."
2. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of SCC Suit No.13 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge-II Allahabad.
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. The writ petitions is dismissed."
3. After going through the same, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition being second petition for the same cause of action filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. At this time, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he will place certain judgements that the second petition is maintainable at different stage and prays for some time.
5. As prayed, put up as fresh on 25.07.2023."
2. Today when the matter is taken up counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court paragraph 120 of the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors reported in AIR 2004 SC 2836. The paragraph 120 is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"120. The principle of res judicata is a procedural provision. A jurisdictional question if wrongly decided would not attract the principle of res judicata. When an order is passed without jurisdiction, the same becomes a nullity. When an order is a nullity, it cannot be supported by invoking the procedural principles like, estoppel, waiver or res judicata. This question has since been considered in Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Ors. v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani : (2004)1SCC497 wherein this Court observed in the following terms :
"So far as the question of rate of interest is concerned, it may be noticed that the High Court itself found that the rate of interest should have been determined at 6%. The principles of res judicata which according to the High Court would operate in the case, in our opinion, is not applicable. Principles of res-judicata is a procedural provision. The same has no application where there is inherent lack of jurisdiction."
3. After going through the same, the Court is of the opinion that the principles of law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case does not help the petitioner.
4. At this point of time, a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner to dismiss present petition as not pressed.
5. The petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2023
Pramod Tripathi
