Madras High Court
P.Geetha vs K.Mydhali Kannan on 13 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4896 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4896 of 2025
1. P.Geetha
2. P.Banumathi
3. Hemalatha
4. Damodaran
5. Vigneshwaran
... Petitioners / Plaintiffs
Versus
K.Mydhali Kannan
... Respondent / Defendant
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to pass an order adjudicating the O.S.No.255 of 2022 on the file of the
II Additional District Judge, Puducherry expeditiously as possible with the
time limit by considering the age of the appellant & also year of the Partition
suit O.S.No.255 of 2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Suresh
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
C.R.P.No.4896 of 2025
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in O.S.No.255
of 2022 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, the
petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.255 of 2022 on
the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, seeking partition,
separate possession and consequently permanent injunction. The respondent
has not filed the written statement so far and has been deliberately delaying
the proceedings with ulterior motives. The case pertains to the year 2022
and is still pending, causing great hardship and irreparable loss to the
petitioners. Hence, he would further submit that the speedy disposal of
O.S.No.255 of 2022 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
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
service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
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.”
5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
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 II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry, is requested to dispose of the case in O.S.No.255 of 2022 as
expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
13.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:58:30 pm )
