MP High Court Criticises Trial Judge For Refusing To Expeditiously Dispose 13-Year-Old Suit Citing 'Workload'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the transfer of a 13-year-old pending suit from one judge of the trial court to another, strongly criticising the trial court for refusing to comply with its directions to dispose of the matter within six weeks, citing the great volume of work. The bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed that, despite a clear order of November 21, 2025, directing disposal within six weeks, the trial court declined to act and fixed the matter after seven weeks for final hearing. It 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". Expressing strong disapproval, the bench termed the trial court's approach 'very surprising', observing;"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 petitioners challenged the judgment of the Trial Court whereby their application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the case from the Civil Judge to some other bench was rejected. The application contended that despite the High Court's directions of November 21, 2025, to decide the suit within six weeks, the Trial Court fixed the case for final arguments on January 8, 2026. The Trial Court, while listing in January 2026, reasoned that it was not possible to decide the suit within six weeks due to 'great volume of work'. The Principal District judge further rejected the application for transfer of the case, noting that indeed there is a heavy workload before the Trial Court, and therefore it cannot be deemed that it is disinclined to decide the suit. The petitioners contended that even after the disposal of the transfer application, the Trial Court failed to show any inclination to hear final arguments, and now the date was fixed for February 3, 2026. The High Court noted that the suit has been pending since January 2013, and that a petitioner was filed contedng that the case has been continuously fixed for final arguments since 2013, but for one reason or another, the Trial Court did not have time to hear the final arguments over the last 2 years. The court further noted that when the order sheet of the High Court directing disposal of the suit within six months, the Trial Court, on November 25, 2025, simply wrote that it was impossible owing to the workload.The bench emphasized that if genuine difficulties existed, the trial court was expected to at least make an earnest effort to comply with the orders of the High Court. Instead, the trial court passed an order declining to take up the matter altogether and fixed dates beyond the prescribed time frame. The High Court noted that if the Presiding officer was not in a position to decide the case, it ought to have been transferred in the interest ot justice to another court with sufficient judicial time available. Thus it directed; "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".Case Title: Rajrakhan Singh v Rajrakhan Singh [MP-51-2026]For Petitioners: Advocate Rakesh DwivediClick here to read/download the Order

MP High Court Criticises Trial Judge For Refusing To Expeditiously Dispose 13-Year-Old Suit Citing 'Workload'

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags