The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticised a trial court for refusing to complete hearing of a 2013 civil case within the deadline fixed by it. Calling it a “sad sign” of judicial discipline erosion, the High Court ordered transfer of the case to another court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has strongly criticised a trial court for openly stating that it would not be able to decide a civil suit pending since 2013 within the time limit fixed by the High Court. The matter relates to the repeated need for the litigant to approach higher courts for relief due to the delay in hearing final arguments.
A Bench led by Justice Vivek Jain expressed shock over an order passed by the trial judge, in which the judge said that it was not possible to decide the case within six weeks as directed by the High Court.
ALSO READ: Article 142: Supreme Court’s ‘Complete Justice’ or ‘Judicial Overreach’? | Explained
The trial judge had stated that he was also working as the Chief Judicial Magistrate in-charge and was responsible for handling matters of the Juvenile Justice Board, apart from other regular work.
The High Court observed that such an order sends a very negative message to litigants and undermines the authority of higher courts. It noted that the trial court had not even tried to comply with the High Court’s direction.
In strong words, the High Court said,
“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 impression in the mind of the litigant as a sad sign of disintegration of judicial discipline and hierarchy when the civil judge refuses to even list the case within the time limit fixed by the High Court.”
The civil suit in question has been pending since 2013 and had reached the final argument stage long ago. The High Court was informed that for nearly two years, the trial court had not been able to hear the final arguments for one reason or another. Frustrated by the continuous delay, the litigant approached the High Court seeking transfer of the case.
Earlier, in November 2025, the High Court had specifically directed the trial court to decide the suit within six weeks.
However, instead of following the direction, the trial court passed an order stating that it was not possible to hear the case within the given time and simply listed the matter for consideration on January 8, 2026.
Following this, the litigant moved an application before the Principal District Judge, Sidhi, requesting that the case be transferred to another court.
However, the District Court rejected the transfer plea on December 18, 2025, observing that the trial court had a heavy workload and that it could not be concluded that the judge was unwilling to decide the case.
The matter then came back before the High Court, which examined whether the trial court had made any genuine effort to follow the earlier direction. The High Court made it clear that while genuine workload issues can exist, they cannot be a ground to completely refuse compliance.
The Court observed,
“No doubt if there was any genuine difficulty, then the trial Court could have taken some more time, but the trial Court could at least have made endeavour to hear the final arguments within six weeks. The trial Court by passing a detailed order simply refused to hear the final arguments up to 08.01.2026, noting that looking to the workload before the trial Court, it is in no position to hear the final arguments … This was the order which was passed in a suit which was almost 13 years old at the time when the trial court was refusing to hear final arguments since last two years.”
Taking a serious view of the situation, the High Court held that the conduct of the trial court justified transfer of the case. It emphasised that cases pending for over a decade, especially those awaiting final arguments, must be given priority.
ALSO READ: Supertech Supernova Project: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Do Complete Justice
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the District Court’s December 2025 order and directed the Principal District Judge, Sidhi, to move the case to another court with sufficient judicial time.
The High Court ordered,
“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.”
The High Court concluded that the transfer was necessary to ensure timely justice and to maintain judicial discipline and hierarchy within the court system. Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Case Title:
Rajrakhan Singh and others v. Rajkaran Singh (since decased) through LRs
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
