Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRA SINGHversusDEVENDRA KUMAR
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
A High Court cannot issue a direction under Article 227 to compel a subordinate court to dispose of a suit within a stipulated period, except in exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a directive that the Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Ghaziabad decide Original Suit No. 994 of 2018 against Devendra Kumar within a stipulated period. The core issue was whether a High Court can impose a time‑bound schedule on a subordinate court for the disposal of a pending suit. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which holds that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing such schedules except in exceptional circumstances. It also cited its own Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015), which declined to issue similar expeditious‑hearing directions. The Court reasoned that such orders create preferential treatment, overburden lower courts, and that priority should be determined by the trial court itself. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was advised to move an application for expeditious disposal directly before the subordinate court.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, exercising powers under Article 227, direct a subordinate court to decide a pending suit within a stipulated time‑frame?
Subjects
- Article 227
- Writ petition
- Expeditious disposal
- High Court direction
- Subordinate court jurisdiction
- Case management
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13252 of 2026
Rajendra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Devendra Kumar
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Bahadur 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:-
"i. Direct the Court concern i.e. Civil Judge (S.D.)/ FTC, Ghaziabad, to
decide the Original Suit No. 994 of 2018 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Devendra
Kumar) District- Ghaziabad pending before it forthwith or within
stipulated period as 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. 13252 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. 994 of 2018 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. 13252 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…