Ajai Nigam vs Kanpur Development Authority And 8 Others

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Vikram Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1. This is a defendant''s petition. By means of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction that Suit No. 1490 of 1992 filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 2 for permanent injunction pending before the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur Nagar be decided expeditiously.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner written statement has been filed and a counter claim has also been filed. On the counter claim issues have already been framed and the plaintiff is enjoying the interim order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the said suit be decided expeditiously.

The suit is of the year 1992. In the absence of necessary pleadings, this Court is not aware of the pendency of other old cases before the court concerned who is in seize of the present matter. Any direction for the early disposal of this suit would in fact amount to giving priority to the above suit over and above other cases which may be pending before the court concerned since before institution of the suit in question.

Reference may be made on a Division Bench of this Court in Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes and others 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB) wherein it has been held as under:

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.

In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and to issue any positive direction to the court concerned for the early disposal of the suit.

However, the writ petition is being disposed of with the observation that the court below will decide the aforesaid suit according to the length of pendency of cases in their court keeping in mind the interest of the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of.