A writ petition under Article 226 seeking a time-bound period for the disposal of Original Suit No.46 of 2013 pending in the Civil Court, Bisauli. The Court disposed of the petition directing the lower court to decide the case within one year.
The court below shall decide the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably within one year.
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. - 59
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1292 of 2019
Petitioner :- Aisha Begam Respondent :- Civil Judge (J.D.) Bisauli And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard.
The only relief pressed in this petition is that Original Suit No.46 of 2013 (Smt. Aisha Begam and another Vs. Abid Khan and others), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bisuali, District Budaun, may be directed to be decided within a time bound period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose will be served to keep this petition pending and call for a counter affidavit.
In view of the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of providing that the court below shall decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within one year from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 NLY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to decide a pending suit expeditiously.
Whether the High Court should dispose of the petition without calling for a counter affidavit.
Aisha Begam
Civil Judge (J.D.) Bisauli
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
