High Court · 2025

CRP.No.4196 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMANCRP.No.4196 of 20251. P.Devasena2. S.Valarselvi3. Sai Krishna Bai(Added as per order in I.A.No.386 / 2002 dated 22.10.2002) ... Petitioners / Defendants 8, 15 & 22Versus1. Sri Seshadhri Swamigal Trust represented by its Secretary A.Balamurugan (Amended as per order in I.A.No.02/2025 dated 09.04.2025 added as per I.A.No.01/2025 dated 27.03.2025). ... Respondent / Plaintiff2. Sri Arunai Educational Trust, represented by its trustees, having their office at No.41, Thiruvoodal Street, Thiruvannamalai & District. G.Ramanujam (Died)3. M. Panduranga Chettiyar4. S.Karunakaran5. P.G.VenkatramanA.Natarajan (Died)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 6. R.Parimala ChandiranG.Devaraj (Died)7. P.SelvarajS.Udhayamani (Died)8. K.Veeraragavan9. M.Kumar10. C.Govindhan11. K. Babu12. S.Arunagiri13. S.Mannabai14. S.Kumaravelu15. Chandrasekaran16. P.N.K.Baskaran ... Respondents / Defendants 1 to 7, 9 to 14 & 16 to 21 Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a direction, directing the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai & District to dispose of the case in O.S.No.366 of 1994 within a stipulated period. For Petitioners:Mr.R.PrabudossO R D E R Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the O.S.No.366 of 1994 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai District, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 2.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit in O.S.No.366 of 1994 is filed seeking for declaration and permanent injunction on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The said suit is of the year 1994 and more than 30 years have been lapsed, now, the case is posted for framing of additional issues. The first respondent / plaintiff has been dragging the case for more than 30 years by filing petitions after petitions, due to which, the revision petitioners and other defendants are facing great difficulty and he would submit that the speedy disposal of the suit in O.S.No.366 of 1994 is just and necessary. 3. This Court had called for a report from the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai District, and a report was also received on 11.09.2025 from the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai District, requesting to grant one month time to dispose of O.S.No.366 of 1994. 4.It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”5.It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus: “47.3. 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;” (underline supplied)A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.”5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 6.By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time. 7.Considering the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai District, shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.366 of 1994 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. No costs. 17.09.2025avIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking order : Yes/NoNeutral Case Citation : Yes/No6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 ToThe learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai District.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4196 of 2025 M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.avCRP.No.4196 of 202517.09.20258/8