Allahabad High Court
ANUP KUMAR BHATIYA @ ANUP KUMAR CHAURASIYA (DECEASED) AND 4 OTHERSversusSHIV PRASAD PAL (DECEASED) AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the subordinate court for expeditious disposal of the suit and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ under Article 227 directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Gorakhpur to decide Suit No.1452 of 2011 within a time‑frame fixed by the High Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which holds that constitutional courts should not impose time‑bound schedules on other courts except in exceptional cases. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) which declined to issue such directions, emphasizing the discretion of the trial judge and the risk of creating preferential categories. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that it could not direct the subordinate court to expedite the suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court advising the petitioners to move an application before the trial court for expeditious disposal based on its own discretion.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, under Article 226/227, direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period?
- Does such a direction contravene the principle that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing time‑bound schedules for other courts except in exceptional circumstances?
Subjects
- Article 227
- Article 226
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- civil suit
- judicial discretion
- high court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13696 of 2026
Anup Kumar Bhatiya @ Anup Kumar Chaurasiya
(Deceased) And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shiv Prasad Pal (Deceased) And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev 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. Direct the court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur to decide the Suit
No.1452 of 2011 (Shiv Prasad Pal Vs. Anup Kumar Bhatiya), within stipulated period of
times as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
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:-
"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is
A227 No. 13696 of 2026
2
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 petitioners may, however, move an application for expeditious disposal of the
Suit No.1452 of 2011 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…