Allahabad High Court
SHYAM SUNDAR YADAVversusSUNIL KUMAR PALIWAL
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to direct the subordinate civil court for expeditious disposal, dismissing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Sundar Yadav, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a directive that the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad decide his pending civil suit (No 100/2019) within a stipulated period. The High Court examined whether a constitutional court can impose a time‑bound schedule on a subordinate court. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which holds that such directions are permissible only in exceptional circumstances, and on the Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani vs Ali Isteba (2015) which cautioned against ordering expeditious hearing of civil suits. The Court concluded that discretion to prioritize cases lies with the trial judge and that issuing a blanket direction would be inappropriate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court suggesting the petitioner may file an application before the trial court for expeditious disposal. The order was communicated to the concerned court within 48 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Article 227 for a subordinate civil court to dispose of a suit within a stipulated period.
- Whether such direction is permissible in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on time‑bound disposal of cases.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- civil suit
- judicial discretion
- high court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13715 of 2026
Shyam Sundar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sunil Kumar Paliwal
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohan Kant Baghel
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) Pass a suitable order directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad to decide
the Suit No. 100/2019 (Shyam Sundar Yadav Versus Sunil Kumar Paliwal) filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff, pending before him within stipulated period as this Hon'ble court, 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. 13715 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
Suit No.100 of 2019 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…