Allahabad High Court
KANHAIYALALversusSHUBASH
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it could not issue a direction for the expeditious disposal of the civil suit and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners Kanhaiyalal sought a writ directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Badohi to expedite case No.801 of 2018, invoking Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the recent Supreme Court decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which held that constitutional courts should not impose time‑bound schedules on other courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to order expeditious hearing of a civil suit. Applying these authorities, the Court concluded that it could not issue a direction to the subordinate court for expedited disposal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court advising the petitioners to file an application before the trial court itself. The order was communicated to the lower court within the stipulated time.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to dispose of a pending suit within a fixed time‑frame.
- Whether such direction is permissible in light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing time‑bound schedules for other courts.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- expeditious disposal
- writ petition
- Article 227
- subordinate courts
- time‑bound schedule
- civil suit
- judicial administration
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13265 of 2026
Kanhaiyalal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shubash
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hemant Sharma, Saurabh Kumar
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. To issue a writ, order or direction, directed the Civil Jude (J.D), Badohi, to expedite the
Case No. 801 of 2018 (Shubhash VS Kanhaiyalal and others), pending in the court of Civil
Jude (J.D), Badohi on dated 07.09.2018 to 02.09.2026, within certain stipulated period of
time 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 Constitutional 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 sub-ordinate courts for
deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted hereasunder:-
A227 No. 13265 of 2026
2
"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 for expediting the
proceedings pending before it.
5. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious disposal of the
Case No.801 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 as noted above.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the Court concerned within 48
hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 23, 2026 // SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…