'Litigants Facing Delay Tactics': Allahabad HC Seeks Judicial Officers' Reply Over 'Casual' Approach In Deciding Case
The Allahabad High Court recently asked the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the Special Judge, NI Act, Lucknow to explain why they failed to decide a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act within the time period set by the High Court in two of its orders. A bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the trial court, before which the trial of the present case under the NI...
The Allahabad High Court recently asked the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the Special Judge, NI Act, Lucknow to explain why they failed to decide a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act within the time period set by the High Court in two of its orders.
A bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the trial court, before which the trial of the present case under the NI Act had been pending since 2014, and despite two orders issued by the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court (in March 2020 and October 2023), had not decided the case.
The Court noted that the trial court was setting long dates to avoid the hearing and shifting its burden.
In a stern observation, the Court called into question the casual approach of the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and Special Judge, N.I. Act, Lucknow in taking the orders of the High Court casually. The Court said:
“This Court is also of the view that the working of the learned Special Judge, N.I. Act, Lucknow appears to be very casual and he had also avoided to decide the case. The litigants who come before this Court to get justice are facing delay tactics adopted by the learned trial courts.”
Essentially, the High Court had earlier directed the District & Sessions Judge to monitor the progress of the trial pending since 2014. Noting that the District and Sessions Judge did not pay heed to the High Court's order, the Court remarked thus:
“The learned District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow had not given heed to the case and had rejected the transfer application of the applicant for transferring the case from the present presiding officer to another court in the same district, which is also a very casual approach adopted by the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.”
Given this, the High Court called for an explanation from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, to explain why he has not monitored the trial of the case despite an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on October 2023.
Further, the Court sought an explanation from the Special Judge, N.I. Act, Lucknow before whom the proceedings of the instant case are pending, to explain why the case has not been decided yet despite the two orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated March 2020 and October 2023.
The Court was essentially hearing a petition filed by one Mahmood Ahmad Siddiqui seeking the transfer of an NI Act case to another court in Lucknow.
The petitioner argued that a coordinated bench in March 2020 had directed the trial court to decide the case within three months. However, since the case was not decided per the HC's direction, the petitioner approached the High Court again in 2023.
In October 2023, the High Court again directed the trial court to decide the case within three months. This time, the Court even asked the District and Sessions Judge to monitor the progress of the trial. However, as the Court observed in its order, the District and Session Judge did not heed the HC's order.
Noting the non-compliance with orders for expedited case disposal and the failure of the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, to monitor the trial, the High Court ordered the judicial officers to file their explanations in the HC before May 29.
Case title - Mahmood Ahmad Siddiqui vs. The Court Special Judge N.I. Act, Lko. And Another