BANAPHAL YADAVversusMOHAN AND 10 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13667 of 2026

Banaphal Yadav
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
Mohan And 10 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               :   Brijendra Singh, Chandra Prakash
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. It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may
     graciously be pleased to direct the Civil judge (J.D.) Mohammadabad,
     Azamgarh to expedite/ decide the original suit No.79 of 2008 (Banaphal
     & another Vs. Mohan & others) filed by applicant expeditiously within
     stipulated period or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court under facts and
     circumstance of the case in accordance with law. Otherwise petitioner
     shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

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;"
                                                                 A227 No. 13667 of 2026
                                    2


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 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.79 of 2008 before the Court concerned, who
will decide the same on the basis of pendency of cases before it and also
                                                                                              A227 No. 13667 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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