Allahabad High Court
SMT ANNO DEVIversusANAND AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, it cannot issue a direction to a subordinate court for time‑bound disposal of a civil suit, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt Anno Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (S.D) of Jaunpur to decide suit No. 1351/2011 within a stipulated period. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which holds that constitutional courts should not fix time‑bound schedules for cases in lower courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to issue such directions for expeditious hearing of civil suits. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that no direction could be issued to the subordinate court in the present case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was advised to move an application for expeditious disposal before the trial court itself. 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 suit within a stipulated time period?
- Do the Supreme Court’s guidelines on refraining from fixing time‑bound schedules apply to the present writ petition?
Subjects
- Article 227
- Writ petition
- Expeditious disposal
- Time‑bound schedule
- Subordinate courts
- Judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12193 of 2026
Smt Anno Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Anand And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"I. Issue an order or direction, in the nature of directing to the court of
Civil Judge (S.D) F.T.C. Jaunpur to decide the suit No. 1351/2011 Anno
Devi Vs. Anand within 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 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.
A227 No. 12193 of 2026
2
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 Suit
No. 1351 of 2011 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.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to court concerned, within 48
hours.
September 8, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…