Allahabad High Court

TILAK JAUHARIversusBHONDAL (SINCE DECEASED) AND 12 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The High Court declined to direct the subordinate court to expedite the suit, holding that such directions are impermissible except in exceptional circumstances and must be left to the trial court’s discretion.

Summary

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 227 for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Kaushambi to expedite Original Suit No. 440 of 2015. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which limits constitutional courts from imposing time‑bound schedules except in exceptional cases. It also cited the Division Bench’s ruling in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba, which held that High Courts should not direct subordinate courts to fast‑track suits absent clear urgency. Applying these precedents, the Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting intervention and emphasized that the trial judge alone should assess any urgency. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was advised to approach the trial court directly for any expeditious relief.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may issue a direction under Article 227/226 to a subordinate civil court to expedite a pending suit
Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines on avoiding time‑bound schedules apply to the present petition
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify such a direction

Subjects

Article 227
Article 226
writ petition
expeditious disposal
civil suit
jurisdiction
high court direction
urgency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13826 of 2026

Tilak Jauhari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Bhondal (Since Deceased) And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Narayan, Chandrakant
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:-

"1. issue direction directing the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kaushambi, District Kaushambi to expedite the Original Suit No. 440 of
2015 (Bhondal Vs. Tilak Jauhari & others) dated 14.07.2015 pending
before him, within a short stipulated period which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

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. 13826 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 to
expedite the proceedings pending before it.

5. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious
disposal of Original Suit No. 440 of 2015 before the court concerned who
A227 No. 13826 of 2026
3

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.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the court concerned within 48 hours.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
October 1, 2026
A. V. Singh

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…