Allahabad High Court
HARIKESH AND 2 OTHERSversusSHIV CHAND
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction under Article 227 to expedite the pending civil suit as no exceptional circumstances exist.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge, Mau, to decide an old civil suit (Case No. 776 of 2016/167 of 2024) within a stipulated period. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that constitutional courts should not impose time‑bound schedules on other courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also cited the Division Bench decision in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which declined to issue expeditious hearing directions for a civil suit. Applying these precedents, the High Court concluded that no exceptional circumstance existed and that it could not direct the lower court to expedite the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a suggestion that the petitioners approach the trial court directly for any expeditious disposal application. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to decide a pending suit within a stipulated time?
- Does the Supreme Court’s guideline restricting time‑bound schedules apply to the present petition?
- Are there any exceptional circumstances justifying such a direction?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- Writ petition
- Expedited disposal
- Judicial discretion
- High Court direction
- Civil suit
- Time‑bound schedule
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12175 of 2026
Harikesh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shiv Chand
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"a) Issue suitable order or direction to the Court concerned to decide the
Old Case No. 776 of 2016 (New Case No. 167 of 2024) Shiv Chand Versus
Harikesh and others pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Mau, since 2016 within the stipulated period."
2. Recently, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others (2024) 6 SCC 267 has held that Constitution Courts should refrain
from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending
before any other courts. The Court further held that issue of prioritising
the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts
concerned where the cases are pending. Relevant para 47.3 of the said
judgment is extracted hereasunder :-
"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;"
3. The Division Bench of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba,
2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the
A227 No. 12175 of 2026
2
sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant
portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-
"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a
Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a
writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the
Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit.
Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a
separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of
similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the
normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest
care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will
be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits,
which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot
afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be
in a position to have the benefit of such an order.
Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the
concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been
made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving
senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a
particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause
of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply
his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.
For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."
4. In view of above, this Court declines to direct the court below to
expedite the proceedings pending before it.
5. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious
disposal of Case No. 776 of 2016 (New Case No. 167 of 2024) (Shiv Chand
vs. Harikesh and others) before the court concerned who will decide the
same on the basis of pendency of cases before it and also keeping in mind
the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court.
A227 No. 12175 of 2026
3
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to court concerned,
within 48 hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…