Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs Court Of Civil Judge (J.D.) South Room ... on 6 March, 2020
Author: Rakesh Srivastava
Bench: Rakesh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7401 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- Court Of Civil Judge (J.D.) South Room No.24,Sultanpur & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Nath Mishra Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Prabhakar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the order proposed to be passed the notice to the private respondent nos. 2 to 9 is dispensed with.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed praying for a direction to the Civil Judge Junior Division South, Room No.24, Sultanpur to decide Original Suit No.307 of 2012 (Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Pratak and others) expeditiously, within a certain time frame.
The grievance of the petitioner is that more than eight years have passed but the above mentioned case is still undecided.
In Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors., 2011 (88) ALR 850, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or any other cases should be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. The Court observed as under:
"3. ....We also do not know that suits of earlier years in which old ladies figure, are pending or not. However, it is common knowledge that thousands of cases instituted earlier by persons more aged than the petitioner are unfortunately pending in the Court. It is systemic delay. It is further common knowledge that direction of the nature, if granted, affects the working of the Court and the Judges, in seisin of such cases, remain ordinarily occupied with only those cases in which directions have been given for expeditious disposal and cases filed earlier gets ignored as those litigating from earlier years have no resources to approach this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It is further common knowledge that many of the Judges, because of sheer number of such directions, are unable to carry out these directions and subjected to contempt proceedings and even personally directed to appear in such proceedings. Such a prayer made in routine manner can not be granted without serious application of mind. It is high time that we must give serious thought to all these considerations before passing any order for expeditious disposal.
4. We hasten to add that even in such kind of cases, ordinarily this Court would relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the Court in seisin of the lis to take appropriate decision, as it is that Court which can consider the matter in totality of the circumstances."
(emphasis supplied) In Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) another Division Bench of this Court has held that any direction for expediting the hearing of a suit or any case should be issued with greatest care and circumspection and that it should be left to the court concerned to decide as to whether the hearing of the case was to be expedited. Paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the said report is being extracted below:
"2. 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.
3. 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 disabililty 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.
(emphasis supplied) The petitioner has filed the above mentioned case on 14.3.2012. There is nothing on record to indicate the number of cases pending before the court concerned. It is however, not disputed that a large number of cases filed earlier in point of time are still pending.
When the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned above, no direction can be issued to the Court concerned to decide the case mentioned above, within a certain time frame.
The relief prayed for cannot be granted.
However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Civil Judge Junior Division South, Room No.24, Sultanpur to make an endeavour to decide Original Suit No.307 of 2012 (Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Pratak and others) expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Anupam