Back
Orders Priority Hearing for 's 17-Year-Old Suit
The
has stepped in to break a procedural deadlock that kept a civil suit pending since
, directing its transfer to a new judge with a firm 90-day deadline for disposal. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, presiding over a single bench at Indore, observed that the matter
"required to be attended on
"
and ordered
to finally put the long-pending litigation to rest.
A 17-Year Journey Through the Courts
The dispute, originally filed in and renumbered as RCSA-1700005/, involves the —the petitioner—and respondents including the , , and the . The suit had progressed to the stage of before the 31st Additional District Judge at Indore, who had already heard detailed submissions from both sides on April 7 and .
However, an administrative reshuffle transferred the case to the 32nd Additional District Judge, even though the original judge—now in charge of Court No. 22—had already invested considerable time in the matter. This triggered a petition under by the Samiti, seeking a direction to send the case back to the judge who had heard the arguments.
"This Was the Third Transfer": Petitioner's Frustration
Arguing before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel, , highlighted that oral and had already been concluded, and written submissions were on record. He contended that transferring the suit to the 32nd ADJ without any cogent reason was arbitrary and had caused further delay—marking the third such transfer in the case's history. The petitioner had earlier filed an application before the Principal District Judge under Section 24 CPC, but with no relief.
On the other side, Senior Advocate , appearing for , along with counsel for the other respondents, assured the court that all parties would cooperate and not seek unnecessary —a commitment the court took seriously.
High Court's Intervention: Beyond the Usual Course
Initially, the High Court sought an explanation from the Principal District Judge about the grounds for transferring the suit to the 32nd ADJ despite advanced arguments. Upon review, the court noted that the earlier judge (of Court No. 31) had been reassigned to Court No. 22, and all his matters were transferred to the 32nd ADJ as a routine administrative measure.
Justice Bhatt acknowledged the general rule that matters should be sent back to the judge who has heard them in detail. However, considering
"the totality of facts and circumstances and more particularly apprehension shown by the parties,"
he adopted a pragmatic approach. Instead of returning the case to either the 31st or 32nd ADJ—which could invite fresh objections—he directed its transfer to the court of the 26th Additional District Judge, Dr. Shubhra Singh, a neutral forum acceptable to all sides.
Key Observations from the Bench
In a strongly worded order, the High Court underscored the need for urgency:
"On perusal of the record, it seems that the proceedings are pending since which renumbered in year and required to be attended on ."
The court further directed:
"The concerned Judge where matter is now transferred shall give priority to this matter by hearing the arguments of the parties if required on day to day basis or by giving short adjournment if in case of need and try to dispose of the proceedings by considering the arguments of the parties in appropriate manner and also considering the material available on record in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
A Clear Roadmap for Early Disposal
The High Court disposed of the petition with a structured timeline. The 26th ADJ must now hear the matter on a day-to-day basis if necessary, and all parties—having assured the court of their cooperation—are barred from seeking unnecessary .
The order also directed the registry to send back the trial court records by messenger within 24 hours, removing any administrative lag.
Implications for Other Stalled Cases
This judgment serves as a reminder that prolonged litigation, especially when arguments are already underway, cannot be allowed to languish due to internal court transfers. By setting a strict 90-day hearing schedule, the High Court has reinforced the principle that . The case will now be closely watched as a model for how courts can expedite old matters without compromising fairness.
For the and the other litigants, the long wait may finally be coming to an end.
