"Sad sign": Madhya Pradesh HC on trial court’s refusal to finish hearing case within deadline

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently criticised a trial court for stating that it would not be able to finish hearing a 2013 civil case within a deadline set by the High Court, given the high volume of its other pending work [Rajrakhan Singh and others v. Rajkaran Singh (since decased) through LRs].

A Bench of Justice Vivek Jain expressed surprise over an order passed by the trial judge in which it was stated that he was not in a position to decide the case within the deadline of six weeks.

The trial judge's order noted that he was also the Chief Judicial Magistrate in-charge and had to oversee Juvenile Justice Board matters as well.

The High Court said that it would leave an impression on litigants as a sad sign of the disintegration of judicial discipline.

"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 High Court said in its January 13 order.

Thus, the High Court proceeded to order the transfer of the case to another trial court.

"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," it ordered.

The order was passed on a plea filed by a litigant seeking a transfer of a civil suit that had been pending since 2013.

The Court was informed that for some reason or the other, the trial court was not able to hear final arguments over the last two years. Aggrieved by the delay, the litigant approached the High Court for relief.

In November 2025, the High Court ordered the trial court to decide the suit within six weeks.

However, the trial court said that it is not possible to decide the suit within six weeks and merely posted the case for consideration on January 8, 2026.

The litigant then filed a plea before the Principal District Judge to transfer the case to another trial court. The District Court rejected the transfer plea on December 18, 2025, stating that there is indeed a great volume of work before the concerned trial court and that it cannot be said that the trial court is disinclined to decide the suit.

The litigant then approached the High Court again, which expressed reservations about whether the trial court had made any sincere effort to comply with the deadline for deciding the suit.

"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," the High Court observed.

The High Court concluded that this was a fit case for the Principal District Judge to assign to some other trial judge, who would have more judicial time to deal with the matter.

Therefore, it quashed the District Court's December 2025 order and ordered the transfer of the case to another trial judge.

Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the petitioners.

[Read Order]