Allahabad High Court
DEVNATH YADAVversusBHOLA YADAV AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, it cannot direct a subordinate court to expedite a civil suit and must leave such discretion to the trial court.
Summary
The petitioner, Devnath Yadav, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking an order directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Ghazipur to decide Original Suit No. 90 of 2016 expeditiously. The High Court examined the recent Supreme Court decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which restricts constitutional courts from imposing time‑bound schedules on lower courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which refused to direct a subordinate court for speedy hearing. Applying these precedents, the Court held that it could not issue a direction for the expeditious disposal of the suit and that such discretion lies with the trial court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a suggestion that the petitioner approach the lower court directly for any expeditious disposal application.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to expedite the hearing and disposal of a pending suit
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines on refraining from fixing time‑bound schedules for lower courts apply to the present writ petition
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- civil suit
- judicial discretion
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court Bar Association case
- Ali Shad Usmani case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12427 of 2026
Devnath Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bhola Yadav And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinay Kumar Dubey
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 order or direction, to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1,
Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur, to decide Original Suit No. 90 of 2016 (Bhola Nath
Yadav & Others Vs. Devnath Yadav & Others), and to dispose of the said suit
expeditiously."
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:-
A227 No. 12427 of 2026
2
"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 for expediting the
proceedings pending before it.
5. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious disposal of the
Original Suit No.90 of 2016 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…