Allahabad High Court
RAMASHANKAR MISHRA (SINCE DECEASED) AND ANOTHERversusSURYANATH MISHRA AND 16 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court may direct the trial court to expedite the pending suit despite the earlier precedent, provided no class-based discrimination arises.
Summary
The petitioners, Ramashankar Mishra (deceased) and another, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the trial court to expedite Original Suit No. 116 of 1994, which had remained pending for over 32 years. The High Court considered the earlier decision in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which held that such directions could create a class among litigants and were therefore disallowed. Noting the extraordinary delay and the lack of any substantive progress, the Court distinguished the precedent and held that a direction to expedite would serve a useful purpose. It ordered the trial court to decide the suit within six months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, without granting any adjournments. The Court expressly stated that it was not deciding the merits of the underlying suit. Consequently, the petition was disposed of after issuing the expeditious directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a direction under Article 227 to expedite a pending civil suit despite the precedent prohibiting class-based directions.
- Whether such a direction would violate the principle laid down in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba regarding discrimination among litigants.
Subjects
- Article 227
- expedition of suit
- adjournment
- high court jurisdiction
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13378 of 2026
Ramashankar Mishra (Since Deceased) And
Another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Suryanath Mishra And 16 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution has been filed seeking a
direction upon court below to expedite the proceedings of Original Suit
No.116 of 1994.
2. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali
Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) had held that no such direction can be
issued as it creates a class amongst the litigants but looking to the facts of
the case that more than 32 years have elapsed and court below till date has
not proceeded to decide the said suit, in view of said fact, no useful purpose
would be served in keeping the matter pending or calling for counter
affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents.
3. The trial court is required to expedite the proceedings of Original Suit
No. 116 of 1994 and decide the same, expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order, strictly in accordance with law on day to day basis without granting
any adjournment to either of the parties.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 24, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…