Vineet Bansal vs Neeraj Srivastava And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 36726 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vineet Bansal vs Neeraj Srivastava And 2 Others on 8 November, 2024

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175312
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12738 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Vineet Bansal
 
Respondent :- Neeraj Srivastava And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gajendra Kumar Gautam
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Pranjal Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"1. Issue a direction in exercising of the Power Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to expedite the Case No. 1651 of 2019 Computerized CNR No. UPGB05022175 of 2019 Vineet Bansal Versus Neeraj Srivastava and others, which is pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Gautam Buddha Nagar. (Annexure No.1) to the petition within time as stipulated and direction of this Hon'ble Court."

3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of Suit No. 1651 of 2019 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), District- Gautam Buddha Nagar.

4. 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."

5. 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.

6. The writ petitions is dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.11.2024

V.S.Singh