Allahabad High Court
MOTILAL AND 3 OTHERSversusGAYA SINGH
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to direct the subordinate court for expeditious disposal, holding that such directions are impermissible except in exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Kanpur Dehat to expedite Civil Suit No. 202 of 2014. The High Court examined whether it could issue a time‑bound directive to a subordinate court under Articles 226/227. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which holds that constitutional courts should not fix such schedules except in exceptional cases, and on the Division Bench’s ruling in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to order expeditious hearing of a civil suit. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that directing the lower court would create a preferential class of litigants and overburden the subordinate judiciary. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a suggestion that the petitioner may move an application before the trial court for expeditious disposal. The order was communicated to the lower court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Article 227 to a subordinate civil court for expeditious disposal of a pending suit.
- Whether such direction is permissible in view of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on time‑bound schedules for courts.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Art. 226, Art. 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- high court direction
- subordinate court
- civil suit
- jurisdiction
- time‑bound schedule
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12373 of 2026
Motilal And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gaya Singh
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Ranjan Tripathi
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. To direction, directing and commanding the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Court No.5 District Kanpur Dehat to expedite the proceeding of Civil Suit No. 202 of 2014
(Gaya Singh Vs. Moti Lal) expeditiously, if possible within a 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 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 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
A227 No. 12373 of 2026
2
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 for expediting the
proceedings pending before it.
5. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious disposal of the
Civil Suit No.202 of 2014 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 as noted above.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the Court concerned within 48
hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 9, 2026 //SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…