Madras High Court
K.Hariharan vs C.Karthick on 9 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4810 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4810 of 2025
K.Hariharan ... Petitioner / Petitioner
Versus
C.Karthick ... Respondent / Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to direct the District Munsiff Court, Sriperumbudur to dispose the
Original Petition bearing RLTOP No.2 of 2024 at an early date.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in RLTOP No.2
of 2024 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Sriperumbudur, the petitioner
has preferred the present civil revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is a 64 years old senior citizen suffering immense hardship,
mental agony, and financial strain due to the protracted litigation. The
respondent is taking advantage of the pendency of said R.L.T.O.P and is
enjoying the petitioner's property. The petition proceedings are of a summary
nature, and since the period for disposal contemplated under the Act itself is
90 days from the date of service of notice, the prolonged pendency of the
litigation beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act defeats its very
purpose. Therefore, any further delay in its disposal is to be avoided by the
Court. The R.L.T.O.P. is of the year 2024 and is still pending, causing great
hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. The learned counsel would
therefore submit that the speedy disposal of R.L.T.O.P.No.2 of 2024 is just
and necessary.
3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such
directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable
reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of
this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision
Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of
cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in
discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting
for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations
against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and
disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to
be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The
Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The
trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of
favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing
of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system.
No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is
a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish
genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone
are to be given priority.
12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation
without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided.
Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice
and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without
discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions
indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service
to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for
issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is
imminent alone to be considered.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of
in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has
held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should
refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases
pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course,
should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the
disposal of cases pending before any other courts.
Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-
bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances.
The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be
best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the
cases are pending;” (underline supplied)
A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being
routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench.”
5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a
time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending
therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own
procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
6. In view of the same, the learned District Munsiff Court,
Sriperumbudur, shall dispose of the case in R.L.T.O.P.No. 2 of 2024 as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
09.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The District Munsiff Court, Sriperumbudur
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
09.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:09:11 pm )
