Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GOVINDversusJAYNARAYAN AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court held that it cannot direct the subordinate court to expedite the suit as no exceptional circumstances or urgency exist.

Summary

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Civil Judge (S/D) of Maharajganj to decide Original Suit No. 200 of 2006 within a time‑bound schedule. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) which restricts constitutional courts from imposing such schedules except in exceptional cases. It also relied on its own Division Bench precedent in Ali Shad Usmani v. Ali Isteba (2015) that cautions against directing subordinate courts for expedited hearing absent clear urgency. Applying these precedents, the Court found no exceptional circumstance or urgency justifying the direction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court advising the petitioner to approach the trial court directly for any expeditious disposal application.

Issues considered

  • Can a High Court, under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to decide a suit within a stipulated period?
  • Does the Supreme Court’s guidance in High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh preclude such direction absent exceptional circumstances?
  • Is there sufficient urgency in the present case to warrant a time‑bound order?

Subjects

  • Article 227
  • writ petition
  • expeditious disposal
  • subordinate court
  • judicial discretion
  • Supreme Court precedent
  • civil suit

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
               MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13877 of 2026

Govind
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

Jaynarayan And 3 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar
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) issue a order to direct to the learned Civil Judge (S/D) , Maharajganj
     to decide the original suit no.200 of 2006 (Govind Vs. Jangi (now
     deceased) and another), pending before the court of learned Civil Judge
     (S/D) , Maharajganj, within stipulated period 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,
                                                                 A227 No. 13877 of 2026
                                    2


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. 200 of 2006 before the court concerned who
will decide the same on the basis of pendency of cases before it and also
                                                                                            A227 No. 13877 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.