Nandesh Singh & Anr. v. Jitendra Singh), pending before Civil Judge & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a direction to learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandauli to decide the Specific Performance Suit No.320 of 2024 (Nandesh Singh and another Versus Jitendra Singh and others), pending before Civil Judge, (S.D.), Chandauli, expeditiously within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. "

From the perusal of order sheet, it appears that the aforesaid suit is pending since 2024 and several dates have been fixed in the matter.

Prayer made in this writ petition is that a direction be issued to the Court below i.e. Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandauli to decide the aforesaid suit within the time framed as may be fixed by this Court.

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 2 A227 No. 11184 of 2025 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. "