MP High Court Expedites Hearing In 17-Year-Old Civil Dispute Pending In Indore District Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has expedited a 2009 civil suit pending in the District Court of Indore, observing that the matter is "required to be attended on priority basis". [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 343]
These observations were made by the bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt in a petition seeking appropriate directions for a civil suit to be sent back to the Court of the 31st District and Additional Judge in Indore, before whom the matter had reached the stage of final arguments before it was transferred to another Judge.
The bench directed,
"As counsels for all the parties assured this Court that they will cooperate in the process of hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournment as now matter is required to be argued finally by making final arguments, therefore, the concerned Judge where matter is now transferred shall give priority to this matter by hearing the arguments of the parties if required on day to day basis or by giving short adjournment if in case of need and try to dispose of the proceedings by considering the arguments of the parties in appropriate manner and also considering the material available on record in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order".
The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that oral and written arguments had already been submitted, and the matter was then transferred to the 32nd District Judge without any cogent reason, and this was the third time the matter was transferred. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 CPC before the Principal District Judge.
The counsel further submitted that the 31st District Judge had already heard the detailed and final arguments on April 7, 2026 and subsequently on April 17, 2026 but in the meanwhile the suit was transferred to 32 District Judge causing delay.
The court, after haring the submission, considered it appropriate to seek explanation from Principal District Judge regarding the grounds on which he transferred the proceedings to 32nd District Judge despite the fact that 31st District Judge had already heard parties arguments.
At the subsequent hearing, the court noted that the District Judge of Court 31 was now in charge of Court 22 and therefore all his matters were transferred to the new Court, that is, Court of 32nd District Judge where the matter is now pending.
The court noted that normally, it is advisable to send such matters to the presiding officer who has heard the matter in detail. However, considering the arguments of both parties, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the transfer of this matter to any court other than Courts than of the 31st and 32nd District Judges.
The court took note of the Advocate's assurance that they would cooperate in the process and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Case Title: Ayodhyapuri Rahwasi Kalyan Samiti v State of Madhya Pradesh, MP-5011-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 343
For Petitioner: Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar
For Simplex Investment and Mega Finance Pvt Ltd: Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti with Advocate Yogesh Hemnani
For State: Government Advocate Arnik Jain
For Devi Ahilya Shramik Kamgat Sahakari Sanstha: Advocate Vivek Yadav