Allahabad High Court
MUKESH PATELversusRAKESH PATEL AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, it cannot direct a subordinate civil court to expedite a suit and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Mukesh Patel, filed a writ under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Hawali, Varanasi to decide Suit No.34 of 2014 within a time‑bound schedule. The High Court examined the recent Supreme Court decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which cautioned constitutional courts against imposing such schedules except in exceptional cases, and also relied on its own Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which refused to direct a subordinate court for expeditious hearing. Applying these precedents, the Court held that it lacks authority to compel the lower court to set a fixed timeline absent extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the writ was disposed of, with a suggestion that the petitioner may approach the trial court directly for any expeditious disposal application. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 can direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period.
- Whether the Supreme Court's guidelines restricting time‑bound directions to lower courts apply to the present petition.
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- civil suit
- jurisdiction
- high court direction
- precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13230 of 2026
Mukesh Patel
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rakesh Patel And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tarun Kumar Tiwari
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 the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali Varanasi to
expeditiously decide the Suit No.34 of 2014 (Mukesh Patel Vs. Rakesh
Patel and others) pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Hawali Varanasi within stipulated period which may be fixed 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,
A227 No. 13230 of 2026
2
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. 34 of 2014 before the court concerned who will
decide the same on the basis of pendency of cases before it and also
A227 No. 13230 of 2026
3
keeping in mind the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court.
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…