Merely Because A Litigant Has Means To Approach Court & Pray For Expediate Disposal, He Cannot Be Given Undue Benefit Over Other Litigants: Kerala HC

Drawing reference from its previous decision in Shiju Joy. A vs. Nisha [2021 (2) KHC 462] and Prema Joy vs. John Britto [2023 (Ker) 235], the Kerala High Court reiterated that merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach the Writ Court with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage.

The High Court held so while considering an application lodged with the objective of directing the esteemed Court of Munsiff - III, Neyyattinkara, to promptly and efficiently adjudicate upon a matter within a timeframe.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed that “the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and in cases of exceptional rarity. The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court to keep Courts of the District Judicature and Tribunals within their bounds of authority and see that they discharge their functions as per the mandate prescribed under law. But that does not mean that this Court is to intermeddle with the proceedings before the Courts/ Tribunals, at every stage, that too on the mere asking of parties, particularly to dispose of a suit in precedence to older pending matters”.

Advocate M.R Sarin appeared for the Petitioner whereas none appeared for the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, in her original submission, has duly articulated that she initiated the legal proceeding against the respondents with the intent of securing a decree of partition. Regrettably, notwithstanding the fact that the lawsuit was formally instituted in the month of September, 2021, it remains unresolved to date, thereby subjecting the petitioner to significant prejudice and disadvantageous circumstances. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner was compelled to resort to this original petition as a means of seeking timely and appropriate redress.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed that merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage.

“Ext P1 plaint is seen instituted in September 2021. The averments in the original petition does not show as to whether the respondents have even filed their written statement. Thus, I am of the view that the suit is only at its nascent stage”, added the Bench.

On an overall consideration of the pleadings and the settled principles, the Bench stated that there were no extra-ordinary circumstances or pressing reasons to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the trial Court below to expeditiously dispose of the suit in question.

“There are no justifiable grounds made out in the original petition, to direct the out of turn disposal of the said suit, and upset the apple cart of the suits already listed for trial, where there is a huge backlog of suits and applications”, added the Bench.

Cause Title: B.K Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran and Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment