Single judge petition under Article 227 prayed for a direction to decide a pending original suit within a stipulated period. Relying on a Division Bench precedent against time-bound directions, the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9208 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Respondent :- Smt.Anju Pandey And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Chandel,Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Ram Niwas Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The prayer made in the present petition is to issue direction to the court below to decide the Original Suit No.346 of 2014 ( Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Vs. Smt. Anju Pandey & another) within stipulated period.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani & others Vs. Ali Isteba & others reported in 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that this Court shall not ordinarily issue direction to the trial court to decide the suit in a time bound manner as it creates additional work in the trial court when oldest suits are pending.
Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Himanshu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to decide the original suit within a stipulated time bound manner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ali Shad Usmani & others Vs. Ali Isteba & othersRelied on¶6
2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB)
Smt. Bhagirathi Devi
Smt. Anju Pandey
Another
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
