Allahabad High Court
MOHD RAFI DIED AND 10 OTHERSversusMOLAI SAH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to direct the subordinate civil court for expeditious disposal, holding that such directions are inappropriate except in exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The petitioners sought a direction under Article 227 for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Jaunpur to decide Original Suit No. 103/2010 within a time‑bound schedule. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which limits constitutional courts from imposing such schedules except in exceptional cases. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) that disallowed directives for expeditious hearing of civil suits by higher courts. Applying these precedents, the High Court held that it could not direct the subordinate court to expedite the suit and declined to entertain the writ. The petitioners were advised to move an application before the trial court itself, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Article 227 to a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period.
- Whether constitutional courts may fix time‑bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh restricts such directions.
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- subordinate courts
- time‑bound schedule
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12382 of 2026
Mohd Rafi Died And 10 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Molai Sah And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Kumar Dubey, Rishabh Kashyap,
Rohit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"1- Direct upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur to decide the Original suit No.
103/2010 (Mohd. Rafi and another Vs. Molai Sah and another), within stipulated period as
fixed by this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
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. 12382 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
Original Suit No.103 of 2010 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…