The court refrains from imposing time-bound schedules for lower courts unless justified, to uphold equitable treatment among litigants.

O R D E R

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in I.A.No.6 of

2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2025 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.165 of 2025, along with an interim injunction application, I.A.No.6 of 2025. The respondents are interfering with the suit property and disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession. They are also employing delaying tactics by repeatedly seeking adjournments. The interim injunction petition, I.A.No.6 of 2025, has been pending through multiple hearing, causing great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, he would further submit that the speedy disposal of I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2025 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 c