High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANC.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 and CMP.No.24791 of 2025M.Mohammed Raffi ... Petitioner / Petitioner / 1st defendant / Judgment DebtorVersus1. Jayapriya Chit funds Pvt. Ltd., Villupuram Branch, represented by its Foreman and having office at No.668, Nehruji Road, 3rd floor, Near Gandhi Statue, Villupuram. ... Respondent / Petitioner / Petitioner / Decree Holder2. V.Suresh Babu3. B. Jageerhussain4. M.Mohamed Eliyas5. N.Ranjithsingh6. S.Muthukumaran7. A.Harikovintham8. M.Mohammed Riaz ... Respondents / Petitioners / Defendants 2 to 8 / Judgment Debtors1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India, to issue suitable directions to the learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram, to hear and dispose of the pending E.P.No.2 of 2019 in ARC.No.29 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner:Mr.K.S.Govinda Prasad O R D E RSeeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in E.P.No.2 of 2019 in ARC.No.29 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.2.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the first respondent / Decree Holder had filed A.R.C.No.29 of 2015 before the learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram, and the same was allowed in favour of the first respondent / Decree Holder. Thereafter, the first respondent / Decree Holder initiated Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2019 to enforce the said award. However, despite the lapse of 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 considerable time, the execution petition is still pending without final disposal. The revision petitioner has already filed his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit in the said proceedings and has also paid a substantial portion of the admitted amount to the first respondent. The prolonged pendency of the execution petition has caused grave prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, who is suffering for no fault of his. Hence, he would further submit that the speedy disposal of E.P.No.2 of 2019 in ARC.No.29 of 2015 is just and necessary.3.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 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 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 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 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.”4.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:4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 “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.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. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 6.In view of the same, the learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram, is requested to dispose of the case in E.P.No.2 of 2019 in ARC.No.29 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible.7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 10.10.2025avIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking order : Yes/NoNeutral Case Citation : Yes/NoToThe learned I Additional Judge, Villupuram,6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.avC.R.P.No.4904 of 2025 and CMP.No.24791 of 202510.10.20257/7