Madras High Court
A.Anirtham vs N.Manohar Reddy on 18 September, 2025
CRP.No.4471 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4471 of 2025
1. A.Anirtham
2. T.S.Simson
3. T.S.Ismavel
4. T.S.Rajan
T.S.Enoke
5. Salomi Deenal
6. Esther Selvakumari
7. Yabase Gnanaraj
... Petitioners /
Plaintiffs 1 to 7
Versus
1. N.Manohar Reddy
2. V.S.Anitha ... Respondents /
Defendants 1 & 2
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, for speedy disposal of the suit registered as O.S.No.65 of 2016 pending
on the file of in the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at
Sriperumbudur shall be disposed off and justice to be rendered.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Willson Topaz
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
CRP.No.4471 of 2025
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the O.S.No.65 of 2016
on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Sriperumbudur, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the learned District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, seeking for declaration of a
Sale deed dated 29.06.2000 which was fraudulently executed by the first
defendant as General Power of Attorney of Mrs. Padmavathi Ammal who
was deceased at that point of time. The entire sale transaction was initiated
with a malafied notion to cause monetary loss to the plaintiffs. The said suit
is of the year 2016 and more than 9 years have been lapsed, he prays for
speedy disposal of the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 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: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
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 considered for
issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
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: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
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 District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, shall dispose of the O.S.No.65 of 2016 as
expeditiously as possible.
With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
18.09.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
To
The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
Sriperumbudur.
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 11:18:23 am )
