Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manbhawati Devi vs Kailash And 4 Others on 13 November, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178271
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13880 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Manbhawati Devi
Respondent :- Kailash And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"Issue a suit order or direction directing the learned Court of the Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi to decide Case No.671 of 2009 (Kailash Vs. Shivshankar & Ors.) pertaining to the specific performance of suit, pending before it since 2009, within a stipulated period of time."
2. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of Case No.671 of 2009 pending in the court of Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi.
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.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024
CS/-
