Allahabad High Court
KAVITA DEVIversusBRAJMOHAN AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot direct the subordinate court to expedite the pending suit and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Kavita Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a High Court order directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Mau to dispose of her suit (Case No. 1385 of 2025) within two months. The Court examined precedent, noting the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 6 SCC 267 held that constitutional courts should not fix time‑bound schedules for cases pending before other courts except in exceptional circumstances. The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) 2 ADJ 250 (DB), which declined to issue such expeditious directions to subordinate courts. Applying these principles, the High Court declined to direct the lower court to expedite the suit, emphasizing that discretion rests with the trial judge. The petitioner was advised to move an application before the subordinate court itself, 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 dispose of a suit within a stipulated time?
- Does the Supreme Court precedent in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh restrict such time‑bound directives by constitutional courts?
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- subordinate court
- judicial discretion
- time‑bound direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13314 of 2026
Kavita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Brajmohan And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjali, Kavita Srivastava, Pramod
Kumar 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. To issue a order or direction to Case no.1385 of 2025 (Kavita Devi Vs.
Brajmohan and another) pending before the Court of civil Judge (Junior
Division) Mau, expeditiously, if possible with in a stipulated time period
of two months."
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
A227 No. 13314 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 Case No. 1385 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. 13314 of 2026
3
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the court concerned within 48 hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
A. V. Singh
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…