Madras High Court
Shanmugam vs Uma on 22 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.5033 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.5033 of 2025
1. Shanmugam
2. Karthikeyan @ Karthi
3. Senthilkumar
... Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 3
Versus
1. Uma
... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2. Dhanalatchumi
3. Shanmugam
4. Sivagami
5. Abirami
6. Thenmozhi
7. Kanimozhi ... Respondents / Defendants
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Kallakurichi to dispose of
the suit in O.S.No.78 of 2024 at an early date / within a time frame fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Dilipkumar
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in O.S.No.78 of
2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,
Kallakurichi, the petitioners have preferred the present civil revision
petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits
that the first respondent / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2020, seeking
partition and separate possession before the learned Additional District
Judge, Villupuram. Subsequently, the suit was transferred from the
Villupuram Court to the learned District Principal Judge, Kallakurichi, and
renumbered as O.S.No.78 of 2024. The suit has been pending from 2020 to
the present, even after filing the written statement. The prolonged delay has
caused great hardship and irreparable loss. The learned counsel further
submits that the speedy disposal of O.S.No.78 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 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: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 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.”
5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 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 Principal District Judge,
Kallakurichi, is requested to dispose of the case in O.S.No.78 of 2024 as
expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
22.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned Principal District Judge, Kallakurichi.
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
av
22.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
