In a sharply worded order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the transfer of a civil suit that has been pending since 2013, after expressing serious concern over repeated delays and the trial court’s refusal to follow a six-week timeline set by the High Court itself.
Background of the Case
The matter involves a dispute between Rajrakhan Singh and others and Rajkaran Singh (since deceased), through legal heirs Jai Singh and others. The suit has been before the Third Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sidhi, for years.
Read also:-Supreme Court settles Tiger Global tax dispute, backs treaty protection in ₹15,000+ crore Flipkart
In November 2025, the High Court had already stepped in under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the trial court to hear final arguments and decide the case within six weeks. The reason was simple - the case had reached the final stage, yet arguments were being endlessly postponed.
Despite that clear direction, the trial court recorded that it was “impossible” to meet the deadline due to workload and fixed a date beyond the six-week limit.
Petition for Transfer
Frustrated with the continued delay, the petitioners moved an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking transfer of the case to another court. They argued that the trial court was unwilling - or unable - to bring the long-pending suit to a close.
Read also:- Supreme Court clears insolvency against Takshashila Elegna developer, rejects housing society's bid
However, the Principal District Judge, Sidhi rejected the request in December 2025, saying the trial court was burdened with heavy work and could not be accused of avoiding the case.
That rejection led to the present petition before the High Court.
Court Observations
Hearing the matter, Justice Vivek Jain did not mince words. The court noted that final arguments had been pending for nearly two years, even though nothing remained in the suit except hearing and judgment.
Referring to the conduct of the trial court, the bench observed,
“Such instances give an impression in the mind of the litigant as a sad sign of disintegration of judicial discipline and hierarchy.”
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail to Prayag Group Directors in ₹2,800 Crore PMLA Case, Cites Gravity
The High Court found it “surprising” that even after a specific order to conclude the case within six weeks, the trial court chose to list it beyond that period instead of making an effort to comply.
The judge further remarked that if the court genuinely lacked time, it should have sought administrative support rather than simply declining to hear the matter.
Why the Transfer Was Needed
The High Court underlined that justice delayed is not just inconvenient - it damages public confidence in the system. With the suit now more than 13 years old, and only final arguments pending, the bench felt there was no justification for further delay.
“The Presiding Officer is in no position to decide the suit,” the court said, pointing out that continuing in the same court would only prolong the dispute.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail to Prayag Group Directors in ₹2,800 Crore PMLA Case, Cites Gravity
The Decision
Setting aside the District Judge’s order, the High Court allowed the transfer application under Section 24 CPC.
The Principal District Judge, Sidhi has now been directed to move the case to another court of the same jurisdiction - one that has the judicial time to hear final arguments and deliver judgment in the long-pending matter.
The court also ordered that copies of its decision be sent to senior judicial officers on the administrative side for information and necessary follow-up.
Case Title: Rajrakhan Singh & Ors. vs Rajkaran Singh (Deceased) Through LRs
Case No.: Misc. Petition No. 51 of 2026
Decision Date: 13 January 2026
