MP High Court: 90-Day Civil Suit Disposal Deadline for Decade-Old Case

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court transferred a civil suit pending since 2009 to a new district court.
• Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt ordered the new court to decide the case within 90 days from the date of receiving the order copy.
• The decision was made on August 20 in response to a writ petition filed by the Ayodhyapuri Rahwasi Kalyan Samiti.
• The court noted the suit had drifted between judges and was transferred to the 26th Additional District Judge, Dr. Shubhra Singh, Indore.
• Counsel for all parties assured the High Court of their cooperation and commitment to not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The directive mandates that the newly assigned court, presided over by the 26th Additional District Judge, Dr. Shubhra Singh, in Indore, must prioritize the matter.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has intervened in a civil suit that has languished for over a decade, ordering its transfer to a new district court and imposing a strict 90-day deadline for its final disposal. This decisive action, taken by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt on August 20, aims to accelerate the resolution of a case that originated in 2009 and had been renumbered in 2016, highlighting the court's commitment to addressing the `Indian civil litigation backlog resolution`.

The directive mandates that the newly assigned court, presided over by the 26th Additional District Judge, Dr. Shubhra Singh, in Indore, must prioritize the matter. The court emphasized that arguments should be heard on a day-to-day basis if necessary, or with minimal adjournments, to ensure the `expeditious disposal` of the proceedings. This ruling sets a clear precedent for the `MP High Court 90-day civil suit disposal deadline` in cases of prolonged judicial delays.

The civil suit, originally instituted in 2009, had a convoluted journey through the judicial system. The High Court's review of the trial court record, requested on August 19, revealed that the matter had been heard to some extent by a judge in Court No. 31, who subsequently moved to Court No. 22. In the interim, an administrative order had further shifted the suit to the Court of the 32nd Additional District Judge, Indore, where it was pending when the writ petition was lodged.

This history of the case drifting between various judicial officers without a conclusive resolution prompted the High Court's decision to effect a `Madhya Pradesh High Court civil suit transfer`. The court noted that despite arguments having been advanced and written submissions filed, the matter remained unresolved, necessitating urgent attention. The petitioner was represented by Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, while Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti, assisted by Yogesh Hemnani, appeared for respondent no. 3, Simplex Investment and Mega Finance Pvt. Ltd. Government Advocate Arnik Jain represented the State, and Vivek Yadav appeared for respondent no. 4, Devi Ahilya Shramik Kamgat Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.

While the High Court acknowledged that the usual procedure might involve returning the case to the presiding officer who had previously heard it in detail, it opted for a different course. Considering the "totality of facts and circumstances" and, crucially, the "apprehension shown by the parties," the court determined that transferring the suit to an entirely new court was in the "larger interest of justice." This decision aimed to remove the case from both the 31st and 32nd Additional District Courts, ensuring a fresh start.

Crucially, counsel for all parties provided assurances to the High Court that they would cooperate fully in the hearing process and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. The court explicitly recorded this commitment, making it clear that parties remain duty-bound by their counsel's pledges once the matter reaches the new court. This assurance was a significant factor in the court's decision to impose the stringent 90-day deadline.

As a direct consequence of this order, other pending applications seeking the transfer of the suit under `Section 24 CPC transfer applications` were deemed to require no further separate consideration. The counsel for respondent no. 4 also confirmed that their party would not press the transfer application previously filed. The Registry was directed to send the trial court record back to the concerned District Court via messenger by the following day, facilitating a swift transition to the newly designated court.

This ruling signals the Madhya Pradesh High Court's proactive stance on reducing civil litigation backlogs and imposing strict deadlines for disposal. Lawyers with long-pending civil suits in India, particularly within MP, should note this precedent as a potential avenue to seek expedited resolution for their own cases, and be prepared for courts to demand greater cooperation and adherence to timelines from all parties.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet