Allahabad High Court
Sayeed Ahmad vs Rahmat Ali And Another on 24 July, 2026
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:50034 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4004 of 2026 Sayeed Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) Versus Rahmat Ali And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Court No. - 7 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned court i.e. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow to make endeavour and decide the regular suit No.1815/2023 (Rahmat Ali Vs. Saeed Ahmad & others) within reasonable time.”
4. The present petition has been filed for expeditious disposal of Regular Suit No.1815/2023 (Rahmat Ali Vs. Saeed Ahmad & others), which is pending since 2023, as such the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to decide the suit, in issue.
5. As per the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Km. Shobha Bose V. Judge Small Causes & Ors. reported in 2011 (88) ALR 850, has held that the power to direct expeditious disposal of Suit or any other Cases should be exercised sparingly in extra ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : “3. The prayer made in this petition for expeditious disposal of the suit/revision, in sum and substance, is nothing but a prayer for out of turn hearing of the suit. We are unaware of the docket of the Judge, Small Causes Court in seisin of the matter. 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. We are not oblivion of the fact that this Court does possess power to direct early disposal of the case but as often said more the power greater the responsibility. We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced. 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.”
6. As per the subsequent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB), 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.”
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. The State of U.P. and others: 2024 (3) ADJ 295 (SC) has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under : “37 . …
a. ….
b…..
c. 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 concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed in the case of Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain Vs. The State of Maharastra passed in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “We are of the view that since every High Court and every court in the country has a huge pendency, the constitutional court should avoid temptation of fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of any case before any court unless the situation is extra ordinary.”
9. In addition to above pronouncements, this Court also took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377, particularly paragraph 47, which reads as under : “47. The following directions are issued:
i. All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.
ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.
iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.
iv. In the event of the party’s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.
v. Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis.
vi. Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.
vii. The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.
viii. The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).
ix. The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.
x. At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.
xi. The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.
xii. The Committee so constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly.”
10. Considering the aforesaid as also the fact that the suit in issue is pending since the year 2023, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expeditious disposal of the suit before the concerned trial court indicating therein all the relevant facts within next two weeks. The trial court is directed to consider and decide the same within three weeks thereafter in accordance with law and in case the trial court is of the view that a case for expediting the matter is made out, appropriate orders shall be passed thereupon.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
July 24, 2026
Arun/-
Â
Â
