Allahabad High Court
SABARUN NESHAversusMD CHHAGUR AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot direct the subordinate civil court to expedite the suit and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Deoria to decide a civil suit (Original Suit No. 1919 of 2024) within a stipulated period. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 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 the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which declined to issue such directions to subordinate courts. Applying these precedents, the Court declined to direct the lower court for expeditious disposal and dismissed the writ petition. The Court advised the petitioner to move an application before the trial court for any urgent relief, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, under Article 227 (or Article 226), issue a direction to a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period?
- Does the Supreme Court precedent restricting time‑bound schedules for subordinate courts preclude such a direction?
- Should the writ petition be dismissed on the ground of lack of exceptional circumstances?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Article 227
- Article 226
- Expeditious disposal
- Time‑bound direction
- High Court jurisdiction
- Civil suit
- Subordinate court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13287 of 2026
Sabarun Nesha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Md Chhagur And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shatrughan Yadav, Shivam Dubey
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. Issue an order or direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court no.10 Deoria,
District Deoria to decide the Civil Suit vide original suit no. 1919 of 2024 (Chhagur and
Others Vs. Sabarun Nisha) within stipulated period"
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:-
"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is
A227 No. 13287 of 2026
2
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
Original Suit No.1919 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 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…