Allahabad High Court
Kunj Bihari vs Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra,Civil Judge ... on 8 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83275
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 8977 of 2023
Applicant :- Kunj Bihari
Opposite Party :- Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra,Civil Judge (Sr. Div)
Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 19.11.2022 while disposing of Matters under Article 227 No. 10380 of 2022 passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
By the present petition, petitioner is praying for expeditious disposal of Case No. 292 of 2014 (Kunj Bihari Vs. Smt. Radhika Devi and others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia, within stipulated period.
This Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the Court below to maintain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old. In view of orders already issued on administrative side, the Court below is expected to decide the aforesaid case which is pending before it expeditiously without any further delay. The Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment including the ground of strikes of the lawyers. The parties shall fully cooperate in early disposal of the case.
In view of aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."
From perusal of the order, it is clear that Court had observed that on the administrative side directions have been issued to court below to maintain zero pendency of cases which are more than 5 years old.
The matter regarding direction to be issued to Civil Court and Tribunal has been extensively dealt with by Division Bench presided by His Lordship, Hon'ble D.Y. Chandrachud, present Chief Justice of India in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) when His Lordship was Chief Justice of this Court. 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."
From perusal of the judgment of Division Bench, it is clear that no such direction can be issued to court below to decide the matter out of turn as it will create a class.
In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out.
The contempt application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
V.S.Singh
