Article 227 Can't Be Invoked To Interfere With Lower Court Proceedings Merely On Parties' Requests For Out-Of-Turn Hearings: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that although it possesses the authority to ensure that lower courts and tribunals adhere to their prescribed jurisdiction and functions in accordance with the law, this power granted under Article 227 of the Constitution does not grant the High Court the right to intervene in the proceedings of other courts or tribunals merely based on the request of parties to prioritise their case over previously pending matters.

Justice C.S. Dias relied on Shiju Joy.A v. Nisha (2021) and Prema Joy v. John Britto [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235] to add that ‘out-of-turn’ hearings can cause injustice to other litigants and disrupt the order of cases already listed for trial.

"Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage," the Bench reiterated. 

The petitioner had instituted a partition suit in 2021, which had not been decided and was thus causing prejudice to her. She approached the High Court seeking a direction to be issued to the court below to expeditiously dispose of the suit within a fixed time frame. 

The Court noted that the averments in the plea did not reveal whether the respondents had even filed their written statement and took the view that the suit was still at the nascent stage. 

Justice Dias considered the power of superintendence under Article 227 and emphasised that this power ought to be exercised only sparingly and in cases of exceptional rarity. It was thus held that the present case did not bring forth any extraordinary circumstances or pressing reasons to invoke its power of superintendence under Article 227 to direct the court below to expeditiously dispose of the suit in question.

"There are no justifiable grounds made out in the original petition, to direct the out of turn disposal of the said suit, and upset the apple cart of the suits already listed for trial before the court below, where there is a huge backlog of suits and applications. Hence, this Court leaves it to the absolute discretion and wisdom of the court below to decide, whether the present suit is to be disposed of in precedence to older pending matters," the Court observed.

The Court also stated that if a litigant wants their case to be expedited, they should first approach the lower court with a request, and only if that request is denied should they invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.

It added that it would be up to the petitioners to move the court below by filing an application, seeking out-of-turn disposal of the suit, and stated that in such an event, the court below ought to consider such application as per the principles laid down in Shiju Joy A. (Supra), and Prema Joy (Supra). 

The plea was thus dismissed.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate M.R. Sarin. 

Case Title: B.K. Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 410

Case Number: OP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment