Allahabad High Court
PRAKASHNATH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the civil suit, holding that such intervention is inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Jaunpur to decide a 2006 civil suit (Case No. 830 of 2006) within a stipulated period. The High Court examined whether it could issue a time‑bound directive under Article 227, noting the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) that constitutional courts should not fix such schedules except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which refused to order expeditious hearing of a civil suit. Applying these precedents, the Court held that directing the lower court to expedite the case would be inappropriate and could create preferential treatment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court advising the petitioners to file an application before the trial court for any urgent relief. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 227, issue a direction for time‑bound disposal of a civil suit pending before a subordinate court.
- Whether the circumstances in the present case qualify as ‘exceptional’ to justify such a direction.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- Writ petition
- Expeditious disposal
- Time‑bound schedule
- High Court direction
- Civil suit
- Judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13657 of 2026
Prakashnath And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babu Ram Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
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 in the nature of directing the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), 6th Jaunpur, to decide Case No. 830 of 2006 (Prakashnath and another Vs.
Dinanath and others) expeditiously, preferably within a stipulated period, in accordance
with law."
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. 13657 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.830 of 2006 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 30, 2026 // SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…