Madras High Court
P. Karthikeyan vs Jayammal on 10 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4853 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4853 of 2025
and
CMP.No.24450 of 2025
P. Karthikeyan ... Petitioner / Plaintiff
Versus
1. Jayammal
... 1st Respondent / Defendant
2. Pachaiammal
3. Revathi @ Devi
4. Pacha Murugan
5. Santhanagopal
6. Sambamoorthy
7. Udhyaraj
... Respondents 2 to 7 / Defendants 2 to 7
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, to dispose of
the I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2025, within a time frame to fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaurudeen
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
C.R.P.No.4853 of 2025
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in I.A.No.6 of
2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2025 on the file of learned Principal District Judge,
Namakkal, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.165 of 2025, along with an
interim injunction application, I.A.No.6 of 2025. The respondents are
interfering with the suit property and disturbing the petitioner's peaceful
possession. They are also employing delaying tactics by repeatedly seeking
adjournments. The interim injunction petition, I.A.No.6 of 2025, has been
pending through multiple hearing, causing great hardship and irreparable
loss to the petitioner. Hence, he would further submit that the speedy
disposal of I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
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.”
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
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
that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
6. In view of the same, the learned Principal District Judge,
Namakkal, is requested to dispose of the case in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in
O.S.No.165 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
No costs.
10.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
and
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 08:42:03 pm )
