Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J
Manikandan S/o.Periyasamy – Appellant
Versus
Jeevanandham S/o.Thangasamy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.4490 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Sathiyabal
For the Respondents:
Constitutional Courts must avoid imposing time limits for case disposal unless in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the fair treatment of all litigants.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Civil Revision Petition - Direction for speedy disposal of Motor Accident Claim Case - High Court refrains from issuing indiscriminate directions for speedy disposal without justified urgency - Relevant judgments cited emphasize treating all litigants equally and allowing courts to manage their schedules based on reasonable grounds. (Paras 3, 4, and 5)
(B) Judicial Administration - The principle of equal treatment for all litigants under the legal system is underscored; courts should avoid preferential treatment in case disposition unless clear exigencies are demonstrated. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having lost his vision and sustained multiple fractures in an accident occurred in 2022, requested the speedy disposal of his claim pending for over two years.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasizes that fixing time-bound schedules should only happen in exceptional situations and that procedural regulation lies with the concerned court.
Issues: The main issue is whether the High Court should issue directions for speedy disposal without grounds of urgency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Constitutional Courts must not routinely impose deadlines on lower courts unless justified by exceptional circumstances, highlighting the need for consistent treatment of all cases.
Result: The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall dispose of the case in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2023 within four months from the receipt of the order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks urgent case resolution due to injuries from an accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. high court emphasizes justification for expedited hearing. (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial systems must not show preferential treatment without grounds. (Para 4) |
| 4. court regulates case timelines in its discretion. (Para 5) |
| 5. civil revision petition is resolved with directives for case disposal. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2023 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Perambalur, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the accident took place in the year 2022 and claim petition was filed in the year 2023 and the same is pending for more than two years, which causes great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner, since he has lost his vision in right eye and sustained multiple fractures all over the body. He would further submit that the speedy disposal of M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2023 is just and necessary.
3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad
674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:
“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.
12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”
4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267 , this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:
“47.3. 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 courts concerned where the cases are pending;”
