Allahabad High Court
MRITYUNJAI KUMAR VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
The Court held that without showing exceptional circumstances, it cannot issue a direction for time‑bound disposal of the pending case.
Summary
The applicant, Mrityunjai Kumar Verma, filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a High Court direction that the trial court expedite a pending Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case (Case No. 117674 of 2023). The applicant argued that the case had been pending since November 2023 and requested a time‑bound schedule for its disposal. The State opposed the direction, citing no overload in the trial court. The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P.) which hold that time‑bound orders are only permissible in extraordinary circumstances. Finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance, the Court refused the prayer but allowed the applicant to move a separate application before the trial court for expeditious disposal, prescribing timelines for that application and any subsequent order.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Section 529 of the BNSS, direct a lower court to dispose of a case within a fixed time‑bound schedule.
- Whether the facts of the present case constitute 'exceptional circumstances' justifying such a direction.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 529
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- time‑bound disposal
- Section 529 BNSS
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- exceptional circumstances
- court pendency
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3793 of 2026
Mrityunjai Kumar Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Kant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicant with a prayer to direct the concerned Court to expedite the Case No.
117674 of 2023 (Mrityunjai Kumar Verma vs Lokpal Singh) under Section 138
N.I. Act, Police Station Manduwadeeh, District Varanasi, pending in the Court
of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-II, Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the
Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, an application
under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed before the learned trial Court on
29.11.2023, which is still pending and has not been decided till now.
Therefore, he requested that a direction to the learned trial Court be issued to
decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed that
every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, the
constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound schedule
for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State
of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42, which
is reproduced as under:-
"Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for
NA529 No. 3793 of 2026
2
disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendecny of various
categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different.
The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the
concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to
certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders
fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in
exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."
7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of
such a case can be issued not otherwise.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case,
at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is hereby
refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant,
the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies
before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned
case. Therefore, the applicant is given a liberty to move an appropriate
application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such facts, which
are necessary for expeditious disposal of his case within two weeks from
today and in case, such an application is moved, the trial Court shall decide
the same within six weeks from the date of filing of such application. If, trial
Court comes to the conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made
out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the same as expeditiously as
possible within a reasonable period.
10. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall
pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the
proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.
11. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
September 8, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…