Trial court directed to decide pending applications expeditiously after affording all parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 754 of 2022 pending before Court No. 8, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious adjudication of applications at Exhibits 22, 23 and 24.

The applications had been filed on 15 April 2025, 9 July 2025 and 17 February 2026 respectively, but had not been adjudicated until the filing of the petition.

The petitioner submitted that the respondents-defendants had not appeared in the summary suit or in relation to the applications, despite service of notice.

The High Court considered the petition without issuing notice to the respondents, while directing that they be given an opportunity before the applications were finally decided.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to direct the Trial Court to expeditiously hear and decide the applications at Exhibits 22, 23 and 24 in the pending summary suit.

Whether the respondents should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Trial Court adjudicates those applications, despite their prior non-appearance.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to issue an administrative and procedural direction for expeditious adjudication of pending applications before the subordinate court.

It applied the principle of natural justice that parties affected by an adjudication must receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the applications are finally decided.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent, apart from Article 227 and the general requirement of reasonable opportunity, was expressly relied upon by the Court.

The High Court found that the applications had remained pending for substantial periods despite the respondents having been served and not appearing in the summary suit.

Without entering into the merits of the applications, the Court considered it appropriate to request and direct the Trial Court to decide them expeditiously under its supervisory jurisdiction.

However, because the direction was being issued without notice to the respondents, the Court balanced expedition with procedural fairness by requiring the petitioner to serve copies of Exhibits 22 to 24 on the respondents and directing the Trial Court to provide all concerned parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was directed to serve copies of the applications on the respondents, and the Trial Court was required to provide reasonable hearing opportunities before adjudication.

Since the order was passed without notice to the respondents, they were given liberty to seek recall or modification within 15 days from receipt of the order’s copy.