Allahabad High Court
SMT. KANCHAN RASTOGIversusSHRI RAJKUMAR AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit, holding that such intervention is not warranted absent exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kanchan Rastogi, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No.2, Meerut to decide Case No. 397 of 2023, filed under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, within a time‑frame fixed by the High Court. The Court examined whether it could impose a time‑bound schedule on a subordinate civil court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 6 SCC 267, which cautions constitutional courts against fixing such schedules except in exceptional circumstances, and on the Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) (2) ADJ 250 (DB), the Court held that expediting the suit is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Consequently, the High Court declined to issue any direction for expedited disposal and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was advised to move an application for expeditious disposal before the subordinate court itself.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a time‑bound schedule under Article 227/226.
- Whether the circumstances of the present case constitute an ‘exceptional’ situation justifying such a direction.
Legislation cited
- Specific Relief Act — s. 19
Subjects
- Specific Relief Act
- Section 19
- expedited hearing
- high court jurisdiction
- Article 227
- writ petition
- civil suit
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12317 of 2026
Smt. Kanchan Rastogi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shri Rajkumar And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Kumar Baisla
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) To direct the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court no.2, Meerut to
consider and decide the Case No. 397 of 2023 (Smt. kanchan Rastogi Vs.
Rajkumar and another) under section 19 Specific Relief Act, the earliest
within the time stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court,"
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 Constitutional 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. 12317 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. 397 of 2023 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. 12317 of 2026
3
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the court concerned within 48 hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 9, 2026
A. V. Singh
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…