Trial court directed to expedite a suit pending since 2021, subject to parties’ cooperation.

The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking directions to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, to accord priority to and expedite the hearing of Civil Suit No. 340 of 2021, which had been pending since 2021.

The suit concerned a prima facie family dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants relating to the suit property.

The petitioner also sought expeditious disposal of the suit and of all pending miscellaneous applications.

Respondent No. 2 appeared before the High Court, although the Court observed that his presence was not necessary for adjudication of the relief sought and that he had assisted the Court at its request.

The Court considered the matter without calling respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3.

Whether, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should direct the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, to expedite and preferably conclude Civil Suit No. 340 of 2021 within a specified period?

Whether directions should be issued for the early disposal of miscellaneous applications and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments in the suit proceedings?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to issue procedural directions for the expeditious adjudication of a civil suit pending before a subordinate court.

The Court applied the principle that case-management and expedition directions may be issued where proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period, subject to the cooperation of the parties and without expressing any view on the merits of the dispute.

No specific statutory provision, precedent, or independent legal doctrine was cited in the judgment beyond Article 227 and these procedural principles.

The Court noted that Civil Suit No. 340 of 2021 had remained pending since 2021 and involved a family dispute concerning immovable property.

Considering the age of the suit and the desirability of an early resolution, the Court found it appropriate to request the Trial Court to expedite the hearing.

The direction was made subject to the parties extending cooperation and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The Court further directed that all miscellaneous applications be decided at the earliest, while expressly clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the underlying dispute.

The parties were directed to cooperate with the Trial Court, and unnecessary adjournments were to be avoided.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also directed to be decided at the earliest.

Since the order was passed without calling respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3, they were granted liberty to seek recall or modification within one month of receiving the order if seriously aggrieved.

The High Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the case.