Allahabad High Court
VIDYA AND 5 OTHERSversusSHATRUGHAN AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the subordinate court to decide the suit within a stipulated period and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Azamgarh to decide Suit No. 2300 of 2024 within a stipulated period. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which held that constitutional courts should not fix time‑bound schedules for cases pending before other courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on its own Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to issue expeditious‑hearing directions to subordinate courts. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to compel the lower court to adhere to a fixed timeline. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a suggestion that the petitioners may approach the lower court directly for an expeditious disposal application. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 227 (or Article 226), direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines on refraining from fixing time‑bound schedules apply to the present petition.
- Whether the petition establishes sufficient urgency to justify an expeditious‑disposal direction.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- subordinate court
- judicial discretion
- time‑bound schedule
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13209 of 2026
Vidya And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shatrughan And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul 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:-
"direct learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haveli,
Azamgarh to decide the Case No. 2300 of 2024 (Vidya And Others Vs.
Shatrughan And Others) within stipulated period as directed 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 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;"
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. 13209 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 petitioners may, however, move an application for expeditious
disposal of Suit No. 2300 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. 13209 of 2026
3
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the
court concerned within 48 hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…