MP High Court Criticizes Trial Judge For Declining To Dispose 13-Year-Old Suit Citing Workload; Directs Transfer To Another Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vivek Jain has set aside the Principal District Judge’s refusal to transfer a long-pending civil suit and directed that the matter be moved from the concerned trial court to another court of the same jurisdiction with available judicial time. The petitioners sought transfer alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s November 21, 2025 direction to conclude the 2013 suit within six weeks, when only final arguments and judgment remained. The Bench noted that, despite the time-bound order, the trial court recorded inability due to workload and fixed the case after seven weeks for final hearing.
The transfer application was filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that, despite a prior direction of the High Court to decide the suit within a fixed time frame, the trial court had fixed the matter for final arguments beyond the stipulated period.
The petitioners contended that the suit had been pending since January 2013 and that although the trial had concluded, final arguments had not been heard for nearly two years due to repeated adjournments. It was further contended that after disposal of the transfer application, the trial court continued to defer the hearing of final arguments. The challenge before the High Court was limited to examining whether the refusal to transfer the suit, despite the trial court’s stated inability to comply with the High Court’s earlier direction, was justified under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court recorded that “the civil suit in question is pending since January, 2013” and noted that it had been fixed for final arguments continuously since November 2023. It observed that “though the suit is being fixed continuously for final argument, but the Trial Court did not get time to hear final arguments since last two years.”
The Court Observed: "The order sheets placed on record before this Court indicate that when the said order was placed before the trial Court, then the trial Court on 25.11.2025 simply wrote that it is impossible for the trial Court to decide the suit within six weeks and stated that looking to the work load before the trial Court, the trial Court is under no position to decide the suit within six weeks and it is sheerly impossible for the Court to hear the final arguments and pass judgement within six weeks".
It was observed "This order of the Trial Court is very surprising. The Court made no attempt to take up the matter and fixed the date beyond six weeks, that may or may not be a show of oneupmanship or the learned Trial Judge taking offence with the order of the High Court. Such instances give an impession in the mind of the litigant as a sad sign of disintegration of judicial discipline and heirarchy when the Civil Judge refuses to even list the case within the time limit fixed by the High Court".
The Court directed that "In view of the above, the order of the Principal District Judge dated 18.12.2025 is set aside. The application under Section 24 CPC is allowed. The Principal District Judge, Sidhi is requested to transfer the suit to a Court of same jurisdiction having judicial time spare with him to decide 13 years old suits in which only final arguments are to be heard and then judgement is to be passed".
The Court also directed that “a copy of this order be sent to the Principal District Judge, Sidhi, the District Judge (Inspection) having charge of District Sidhi on administrative side. It be also placed before the Hon’ble portfolio judge having charge of Sidhi for his kind information.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Not recorded in thejudgement
Case Title: Rajrakhan Singh and Others v. Rajkaran Singh (Since Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Others
Case Number: Miscellaneous Petition No. 51 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vivek Jain
