# Laxmi Kant v. Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 499
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-07
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 6134 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-kant-v-civil-judge-jn-dv-ambedkar-nagar-ors-49615
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
227-application
for
expedite
disposal-petitioner filed a regular suit for
cancellation of gift deed-petitioner has not
filed the replication before the trial court
till date for which petitioner himself is
seeking time before the trial court for the
last ten months, therefore a litigant, who
himself is not assisting the court, cannot
approach this court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for a direction for
expeditious disposal of the suit-direction
cannot be issued in a routine manner
unless there is some extra ordinary
urgency/situation, on account of which
the delay may cause gross injustice.(Para
1 to 15)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Laxmi Kant Vs. Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar & Ors.
499
(2023) 12 ILRA 499
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6134 of 2023

Laxmi Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raj Karan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
227-application
for
expedite
disposal-petitioner filed a regular suit for
cancellation of gift deed-petitioner has not
filed the replication before the trial court
till date for which petitioner himself is
seeking time before the trial court for the
last ten months, therefore a litigant, who
himself is not assisting the court, cannot
approach this court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for a direction for
expeditious disposal of the suit-direction
cannot be issued in a routine manner
unless there is some extra ordinary
urgency/situation, on account of which
the delay may cause gross injustice.(Para
1 to 15)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shobha Bose Vs Judge, Small Causes & ors.
(2010) 1 ADJ 531

2. Ali Shad Usmani & ors. Vs Ali Isteba & ors.
(2015) 109 ALR 513 (MANU/UP/3334/2014)

3. Yusuf Kamal Khan Vs Board of Revenue Lko.
& ors. Misc. Single No 2862 of 2020,
4. Yashpal Jain Vs Sushila Devi & ors. Civil
Appeal No. 4296 of 2023

5. Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain Vs The St. of
Mah. Crl WP No. 587/2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Shri Raj Karan Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed Regular Suit No.925 of
2022; Laxmi Kant Versus Kamla Devi and
others for cancellation of Gift Deed made
by the respondent no.3 in favour of
respondent no.2, which has not been
disposed of till date, therefore a direction
may be issued for disposal of the said Suit
expeditiously within a time bound manner.

2. Perusal of the order sheet, placed on
record indicates that the written statement
was filed on 02.02.2023 and since 11.04.2023
the case is being fixed for filing replication
by the petitioner, but till date the same has not
been filed. As admitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has
died, therefore he has moved an application
for substitution, a copy of which has been
placed on record as annexure no.3 to this
petition, which has still not been disposed of.

3. On a query being put, learned
counsel for the petitioner also failed to
indicate any urgency in the matter. He only
states that the case is pending for the last
one year, therefore a direction may be
issued for early disposal of the case.

4. Having considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have
perused the records.

5. This petition has been filed
arraying a dead person as respondent no.3
in this petition, who was defendant in the
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid
suit
and
application
for
substitution on account of his death is still
pending, therefore this petition has been
filed against a dead person. The petitioner
has also not filed the replication before the
trial court till date for which the petitioner
himself is seeking time before the trial
court for the last ten months, therefore a
litigant, who himself is not assisting the
court for disposal of the case, cannot
approach this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for a direction for
expeditious disposal of the Suit and no
direction can also be issued on his instance.

6. The petition has been filed for a
direction to decide the Original Case
No.925 of 2022; Laxmi Kant Versus Kamla
Devi and others pending in the court of
Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Ambedkar Nagar
within
stipulated
time,
whereas
this
direction cannot be issued; firstly in a case
of 2022 that too in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also when there is huge
pendency of cases before the courts.
Secondly a direction for expeditious
disposal of suit cannot be issued creating a
separate class for deciding the Suit out of
turn without any extra-ordinary urgency
and sufficient cause. Therefore any such
direction can be issued only with greatest
care and circumspection because it will
also amount to discrimination with most of
the litigants, who cannot afford to move to
this court, whereas their cases are pending
since much prior to the suit of the petitioner
and they may have greater urgency.

7. A Division Bench of this court,
considering the issue in the case of Shobha
Bose Versus Judge, Small Causes &
Others; 2010 (1) ADJ 531, has held that
such a prayer made in routine manner
cannot
be
granted
without
serious
application of mind and it can be exercised
for expeditious disposal in fairly extra
ordinary 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 and 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. The Bench
has also observed that it is common
knowledge that direction of the nature, if
granted, affects the working of the court
and the Judges, in seisin of such cases,
ordinarily remain occupied only in 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. The relevant paragraph 2 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"2. 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
12 All. Laxmi Kant Vs. Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar & Ors.
501
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."

8. Another Division Bench of this court,
in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and Ors.
Versus Ali Isteba and Ors; 2015 (109) ALR
513 (MANU/UP/3334/2014), has held that 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 and if 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, which have been expedited
by the High Court and most of the litigants
cannot afford the expenses of moving the
High Court and would not, therefore, be in a
position to have the benefit of such an order.
The Division Bench has further observed
that ultimately, it would be left to the
judicious exercise of discretion of the
concerned court to determine whether a
ground for urgency has been made out and
emphasized 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 and it is for the Trial Judge
in each case to apply his or her mind and
decide whether the hearing of the suit to be
expedited and declined to entertain the
petition. Relevant paragraphs 1 and 2 are
extracted here-in-below:-

"1. The only relief which is sought
in this proceeding is in the following terms:

"(i) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No. 6 to expedite the hearing of
the Suit No. 271 of 2005, Ali Shad and
others v. Ali Isteba and others.

(ii) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent No. 6 to decide the suit within
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the stipulated period granted by this
Hon'ble Court."

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),
DistrictAzamgarh. 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.

2. 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."

9. Considering the aforesaid orders a
Coordinate Bench of this court, in the case
of Yusuf Kamal Khan Versus Board of
Revenue Lucknow and others; Misc.
Single No.2862 of 2020, disposed of the
petition of a senior citizen with liberty to
the
petitioner
to
move
appropriate
application for expeditious disposal before
the concerned court giving cogent reasons
as to why the case should be given
precedence over other older cases pending
in the said court with the observation that
the court concerned is expected to dispose
of the same in accordance with law after
taking into account its roster of older cases.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Yashpal Jain Versus Sushila
Devi and others; Civil Appeal No.4296 of
2023, framed three points for consideration.
The second point is as under:-

"(ii)
Whether
any
further
direction or directions requires to be issued
for concluding the proceedings in a time
bound manner on account of Suit No.2 of
1985 pending for trial for past 41 years?"

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while considering the aforesaid point,
considered the huge pendency of cases
before different courts, the provisions made
in the Civil Procedure Code, the reasons for
delay in disposal of cases on different
counts and thereafter instead of directing
for disposal of Suit in a time bound manner,
issued certain directions to the trial courts
to ensure 'speedy justice' and monitoring of
cases by the High Courts, which are
pending for more than five years.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a
recent order dated 10.11.2023 passed in
Writ
Petition(s)
(Criminal)
No(s)
587/2023; Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain
12 All. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. Vs. Smt. Rambeti & Ors.
503
Versus The State of Maharashtra, declined to
entertain the petition for a direction for disposal
of bail application in a time bound manner with
the observation that if there is an extra ordinary
urgency, the petitioner can always move the
concerned Bench and if the request is genuine
the concerned Bench will entertain it. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that since
the 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. The
order is reproduced below:-

"Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner.

His grievance is that his bail
application filed in June, 2023 is not being taken
up by the Bombay High Court.

In every High Court and especially
the bigger High Courts, there are large number
of Bail Petitions filed and therefore, some
delay in disposal of the Bail Petitions is
inevitable. If there is an extra ordinary
urgency, the petitioner can always move the
concerned Bench. We are sure that if the
request is genuine, the concerned Bench will
entertain it.

Subject to what is observed above, we
are not inclined to entertain this petition. The
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner insists on passing a direction to decide
the case in a time-bound manner.

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.

Pending
application
also
stands
disposed of."

13. In view of above, this court is of the
view that the petition for a direction for disposal
of a case in time bound manner cannot be
entertained and direction can not be issued by
this court in a routine manner unless there is
some extra ordinary urgency/situation, on
account of which the delay may cause gross
injustice. However in such type of cases also, the
litigant may approach the concerned court,
where the case is pending, giving cogent reasons
showing extraordinary urgency/situation on
account of which his case should be given
precedence over other older cases, who can
consider the same considering as to whether the
case of a applicant/litigant should be given
precedence or not over other older cases pending
in the said court and also the cases which may
have prime cause of urgent disposal, and proceed
accordingly in accordance with law.

14. In view of above, this court is not
inclined to entertain this petition.

15. The petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 503
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6160 of 2023

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Lko. ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rambeti & Ors. ...Respondents