Allahabad High Court
JAIVEER SINGHversusSMT. RINKI AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the subordinate civil court to set a time‑bound schedule for disposal of the suit, and dismissed the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Jaiveer Singh filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aligarh to dispose Suit No. 295 of 2025, filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, within a stipulated period. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which cautions constitutional courts against imposing time‑bound schedules on other courts except in exceptional cases. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which held that directions to subordinate courts for expeditious hearing are generally impermissible. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that it could not direct the lower court to set a fixed timeline for the suit’s disposal. The petition was therefore dismissed, with the Court advising the petitioner to move an application for expeditious disposal before the trial court itself. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to dispose a suit within a stipulated time‑frame.
- Whether such a direction is permissible in view of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on avoiding time‑bound schedules for other courts.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify an exceptional direction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s. 372
Subjects
- Article 227
- Time‑bound disposal
- Expeditious hearing
- Subordinate courts
- Indian Succession Act
- Judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13248 of 2026
Jaiveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Rinki And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjani Kumar Shahwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"Issue a direction to Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aligarh to
295 of 2025 (Smt. Rinki and another Versus Smt. Shanti Devi
and others) Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act, 1925,
within stipulated period 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,
2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the
A227 No. 13248 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 petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious
disposal of Suit No. 295 of 2025 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. 13248 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…