Devi Singh v. Aditya Kumar and others)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31081 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2198 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devi Singh Respondent :- Aditya Kumar Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(1) Issue an order or direction in exercise of power conferred Under Article 227 of Constitution of India to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun to decide the Original Suit No. 249 of 2017 "(Devi Singh Vs. Aditya Kumar and others)", pending before him within the stipulated time as fixed by the Hon'ble Court. (II) Issue an order or direction in exercise of power conferred Under Article 227 of Constitution of India to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun to decide the Stay Application (Paper No. 12Ga) filed on 07.02.2018, pending before him within the stipulated time as fixed by the Hon'ble Court"
Decision
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court through Matters Under Article 227 No.37 of 2024, wherein the writ Court while disposing of the the writ petition, on 31.01.2024, had passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue an order or direction in exercise of power conferred Under Article 227 of Constitution of India to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun to decide the Original Suit No. 249 of 2017 "(Devi Singh Vs. Aditya Kumar and others)", pending before him within the stipulated time as fixed by the Hon'ble Court." 3. A suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed, and thereafter, an application under order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed, which has been allowed on 10.07.2021. 3. From the perusal of order sheet, it appears that the aforesaid suit is pending since 2017 and several dates have been fixed in the matter. 4. Prayer so made in this writ petition is that a direction be issued to the Court below i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budaun, to decide the aforesaid suit within the time framed as may be fixed by this Court. 5. No such direction can be issued in view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba; 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "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. 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 disability 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. For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost." 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of finally, at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid suit before the Court concerned i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun, in accordance with law and in case such an application is moved, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun, shall pass an appropriate orders within reasonable time." 3. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the Court had not interfered in the matter, and no direction was passed for expediting the suit, however, the option was left that the applicant may move an application before the Court concerned. 4. This is the second writ petition for the same cause of action, as from the reading of the first prayer made in the writ petition, it is clear that a direction has been sought upon Court below to expedite the proceedings of Original Suit No.249 of 2017. The said prayer cannot be granted in view of judgement of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267. 5. As far as the second prayer made in the writ petition is concerned, in case the application 12-C is pending consideration before the Court below and same has not been decided till date, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 // SK Goswami Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad