Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD NASIM AKHTARversusJOYA HASAN
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the subordinate court to expedite the suit and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner sought a direction under Article 227 for the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Gorakhpur to decide a specific relief suit (Writ No. 1312 of 2024) within a time‑bound schedule, invoking Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 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 fix time‑bound schedules for cases pending in other courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which declined to issue directions for expeditious hearing of a civil suit. Applying these precedents, the High Court concluded that it could not direct the subordinate court to expedite the suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a suggestion that the petitioner may move an application before the lower court for expeditious disposal based on its own discretion.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, exercising its powers under Article 227, direct a subordinate court to decide a suit within a time‑bound period?
- Does the precedent set by the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh preclude such a direction except in exceptional circumstances?
- Is there sufficient ground of urgency to justify an order for expeditious disposal of the suit?
Legislation cited
- Specific Relief Act — s. 34
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- Specific Relief Act
- Section 34
- time‑bound disposal
- expeditious hearing
- High Court direction
- subordinate court
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12321 of 2026
Mohammad Nasim Akhtar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Joya Hasan
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav, Gaurav
Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Singh
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 concerned learned Court i.e. Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gorakhpur to decide the Writ No. 1312 of 2024 (Mohammad
Nasim Akhtar Vs. Joya Hasan), under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act
expeditiously, within a time bound period as 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. 12321 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 Suit No. 1312 of 2024 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. 12321 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…