Priority in case disposal should be set by trial courts unless extraordinary circumstances arise.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the petition filed by him vide E.P.No.4 of 2000 in O.S.No.23 of 1995, pending on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

2. Heard, Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Giridhar Raju, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, Sri E.Nagaraju, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, Sri Ch.Venu Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri K.Rajesh, learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No.23 of 1995, for specific performance of agreement of sale, against respondents and the same was decreed by the trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 06.03.1998; that petitioner has filed execution petition vide E.P.No.4 of 2000, and the same is pending before the trial Court without any progress, therefore, seeks direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the E.P.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , [(2024) 6 SCC 267], no time line can be fixed for disposal of the case by the trial Court and especially referred to Para Nos.42 and 43, which reads as hereunder:

“42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out of turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

43. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time-frame. In a sense, no court of law is inferior to the other. This court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

5. This Court is in complete agreement with the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court that orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations, and giving priority to certain cases, should be best left to the trial Courts concerned.

6. Perusal of the record would disclose that the E.P was filed in the year 2000 and even after lapse of 24 years, the matter is still pending before the trial Court for enforcement of decree.

7. Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fact that there is no much progress in the E.P, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Bhongir, shall make an endeavor to dispose of the E.P as expeditiously as pos