AJEET KUMAR SINGHversusSMT INDU DEVI AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12688 of 2026

Ajeet Kumar Singh
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

Smt Indu Devi And Another
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Ashish Agrawal, Vijay Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : Swati Agrawal Srivastava

Court No. - 9
                HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

     "I. Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, to the learned
     Civil Judge (J.D)/Pashchimi, Ballia, now Civil Judge (J.D) Rasra,
     District-Ballia to conclude the trail of the Case being Case No. 54 of 2011
     (Devnarayan Vs. Bhagirathi) pending before the Court of learned Civil
     Judge (J.D) Rasra District-Ballia since 2011 expeditiously and preferably
     within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court otherwise the
     petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and loss and hard injury."

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 Constitution 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;"
                                                                A227 No. 12688 of 2026
                                    2


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 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. 54 of 2011 (Devnarayan Vs. Bhagirathi) 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
                                                                                            A227 No. 12688 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    Court.

                                    6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

                                    7. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to court concerned,
                                    within 48 hours.


                                                                                    (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    (V. S. SINGH)




Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad