H.Vijayalakshmi v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

1. H.Vijayalakshmi

2. Prasuna Hemanth Raj

3. Dhanya Hemanth Raj ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs

Versus

1.The District Collector, Office of the Chennai District Collectorate, Singaravelar Maligai, Fourth Floor, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd, (TANTRANSCO), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer / GCC-II, 230 KV CMRL GIS SS, TANTRANCO, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

... Respondents / Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India, directing the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of 1/6

the pending Telegraph O.P.No.172 of 2024 on its file within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Duraikkan S.Phillip For R1 :

Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate

O R D E R

Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in O.P.No.172 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition. 2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners had examined Dr.E.Hemanth Raj as PW1 on their side and marked Exs.P1 to P7 on 24.07.2025. Dr.E.Hemanth Raj is the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second and third petitioners. He is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and serves as a senior surgeon at the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai. The case is of the year 2024 and has been pending for more than a year, causing great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioners. He would further submit that, considering the age and profession of Dr.E.Hemanth Raj, the speedy disposal of O.P.No.172 of 2024 by the trial 2/6

Court is just and necessary.

3.

It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows: "11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of.

The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.

3/6

12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered."

4.

It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows: "In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of 'High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus: "47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the timebound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;" (underline supplied) A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being 4/6

routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench."

5.

By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time. 6.

In view of the same, the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the case in O.P.No.172 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible.

7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

09.10.2025 av Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

av 5/6

To The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

09.10.2025 6/6