Allahabad High Court
KARUNA SHANKAR DIXITversusVIMLA DEVI AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction for the expeditious disposal of the succession case and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioner Karuna Shankar Dixit filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a court order for the issue disposal of Succession Case No. 66 of 2003 pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi, alleging irreparable loss if not expedited. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which held that constitutional courts should not fix time‑bound schedules for cases pending in lower courts except in exceptional circumstances. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to direct a subordinate court for expeditious hearing of a civil suit. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that it could not issue a direction for the expeditious disposal of the succession case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was advised to move an application before the trial court for any urgent relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 can direct a subordinate civil court to dispose of a pending suit within a specified time‑frame.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines on refraining from fixing time‑bound schedules for lower courts apply to the present petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- civil suit
- succession case
- high court direction
- urgency
- constitutional law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13668 of 2026
Karuna Shankar Dixit
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Vimla Devi And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi
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. suitable order direction for Issue disposal of Succession Case по 66 of 2003 pending
before Additional Civil Judge Senior Division Court no. 4 District Varanasi Vimla Devi
Verses Om Prakash and others, within specified period otherwise the petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss and injury within specified 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:-
A227 No. 13668 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
Succession Case No.66 of 2003 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…