Allahabad High Court
YADUNATH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondent to decide the pending case expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent, a judicial officer, to decide a pending civil suit (Case No. 934 of 2018, originally filed in 2010) that had remained undecided despite multiple dates being fixed. The petitioners argued that the prolonged delay violated their right to a speedy trial and requested the court to order an expeditious disposal. The court examined the record and noted that continued adjournments served no useful purpose. It directed the respondent to decide the pending case promptly, ensuring service of notice to all parties, granting a hearing, and refraining from unnecessary further adjournments, provided no other legal impediment exists. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent to adjudicate the pending matter expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a judicial officer to decide a pending civil suit within a specified period.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- judicial delay
- expeditious disposal
- adjournments
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17374 of 2026
Yadunath And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no.2 to decide Case No. 934 of 2018 (Old Case No. 70 of 2010) (Balram Yadav and
another Vs. Yadunath and others) pending before him since 30.04.2010 within
specified period."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that aforementioned case is
pending consideration and the same has not been decided despite several dates have
been fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to
respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in accordance with
law, expeditiously, after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
May 5, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…