JINAT AMANversusMEHBOOB KHAN

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5270 of 2015

Jinat Aman
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

Mehboob Khan
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Alok Kumar             Yadav,      Divyanshu
                                     Vaibhav
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : A.K. Srivastava

Court No. - 9
                 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Petitioner before this Court had filed Original Suit No. 279 of 2013
claiming permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent from not
interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, an application for
grant of temporary injunction was moved, which was rejected by the trial
court. Against which, a misc. appeal was preferred which has also been
dismissed by the order impugned.

2. This writ petition was filed way back in the year 2015, wherein, no
interim order was granted. The matter is pending for the last 11 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that a direction may be
issued to the court below to expedite the suit.

3. 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
                                                                  A227 No. 5270 of 2015
                                    2


     prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the
     courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

4. 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."

5. In view of above, this Court declines to direct the court below to
expedite the proceedings pending before it.
                                                                                             A227 No. 5270 of 2015
                                                                   3


                                    6. The petitioner may, however, move an application for expeditious
                                    disposal of Original Suit No. 279 of 2013 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.

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

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



                                                                                    (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    A. V. Singh




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