Madhya Pradesh HC shifts out case as 'busy' judge flouts order on listing timeline

BHOPAL/JABALPUR: A single-judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court ordered the principal district judge, Sidhi, on Jan 13, 2026, to transfer a 13-year-old civil suit to another court after expressing surprise over the conduct of a civil judge in Sidhi district who posted the case for final hearing seven weeks later despite a high court direction to dispose of it within six weeks.The court in its order observed that "The trial 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 one upmanship or the trial judge taking offence to the order of the high court but 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 court said that the copy of the high court order be sent to the district judge, Sidhi, district judge (inspection) in-charge of Sidhi and the portfolio judge of the high court for Sidhi for administrative action in the matter,The bench of Justice Vivek Jain while hearing the petition of Rajrakhan Singh, who has passed away since, further said that if the judge had no time to hear the case within the time limit set by the high court, the principal district judge should have transferred the case to some other judge but he rejected application of the litigant for the purpose.The court noted that the trial court in its order recorded that its presiding officer is the incharge chief judicial magistrate and having charge of Juvenile Justice Board, and is not in a position to decide the suit within six weeks and fixed the date after seven weeks. Justice Jain further said that 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 for the last two years. Even on Jan 8, 2026, the next date has been fixed on Feb 3, 2026 for final arguments and looking at such an attitude of the presiding officer, this court is of a view that the presiding officer is in no position to decide the suit. It was therefore a fit case for the principal district judge to have assigned the matter to some other presiding judge, who had some judicial time left with him to decide the cases.