In an unusual courtroom moment, a judge of the Allahabad High Court reserved judgment in a matter after stating that he was too exhausted to dictate the order, observing that he was “feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” to deliver the verdict at that time.
The incident took place on February 24 during proceedings before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. The case involved a petition filed by Chandralekha Singh, and it had been pending under directions from the Supreme Court for expedited disposal.
Heavy Cause List and Extended Hearing
Justice Vidyarthi was assigned a substantial docket on Tuesday. According to details recorded in the order, the bench had 235 matters listed for the day, including 92 fresh cases, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh miscellaneous applications, and three additional or unlisted matters.
Despite the extensive list, only fresh cases up to serial number 29 could be heard by 4:15 p.m. However, considering prior directions from the Supreme Court regarding urgency, the court commenced hearing the concerned matter at 4:15 p.m., and proceedings continued until approximately 7:10 p.m.
| Case Hearing Details | Information |
|---|---|
| Total Cases Listed | 235 matters |
| Fresh Matters | 92 |
| Regular Matters | 101 |
| Miscellaneous Applications | 39 |
| Time Hearing Began (Specific Case) | 4:15 p.m. |
| Time Hearing Concluded | 7:10 p.m. |
While reserving the verdict, Justice Vidyarthi recorded in the order that given the volume of cases and the extended hearing, he was unable to dictate the judgment immediately from the dais.
“Today there were 92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh miscellaneous applications and three matters listed in the additional/unlisted list – I, II, and III. Only fresh cases up to serial number 29 could be heard today,” the judge noted.
He further stated, “However, keeping in view the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the hearing of this matter commenced at 4.15 pm, and it has concluded at 7.10 p.m.”
Concluding the order, he observed, “Since I am feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate the judgment, the judgment is reserved.”
Background of the Case
The petition had originally been filed in 2025 challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In May 2025, the High Court had set aside the DRT’s decision and directed it to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
However, the Supreme Court later overturned the High Court’s ruling on August 25, 2025, observing that the respondent had not been granted a proper opportunity of hearing. The apex court directed the High Court to reconsider the case afresh and dispose of it expeditiously, preferably within six months.
February 24 reportedly marked the final day of that six-month period stipulated by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented in Court
During the extended hearing, senior advocates Anuj Kudesia appeared for the petitioner, Sudeep Kumar represented the respondents, and PK Srivastava appeared on behalf of Canara Bank. The proceedings involved detailed submissions from all sides before the matter was concluded for judgment.
With the verdict now reserved, the High Court is expected to pronounce its decision in due course. The incident has drawn attention to the heavy workload faced by courts and the practical challenges of managing extensive daily cause lists while complying with time-bound judicial directions.
For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest India on thefoxdaily.com.
COMMENTS 0