Dismissed

Jai Kishan v. Additional District JUDGE-4, Agra and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2019A227/2459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The matter arose under Article 227 challenging an order by the Additional District Judge, Agra, to dispose of an Order VII Rule 11 application at the time of final decision in a suit. The Writ Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit, no material error, and holding the application to be an attempt to delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the impugned order dated 24.1.2019 was without material error or illegality.

Jai Kishan Vs Additional District JUDGE-4… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2459 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Kishan

¶4

Respondent :- Additional District Judge-4, Agra And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 24.1.2019 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 Agra, upon an application (61-Ga) filed by the petitioner in the pending S.C.C. Suit No. 07/2012, has directed that the said application would be disposed of after hearing the parties finally at the time of decision in the suit.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforementioned application dated 15.12.2016 was referable to the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., and in view of the same, the application ought to have been decided by the court below.

¶8

The application dated 15.12.2016, which according to the petitioner, was an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., is on record as annexure 4 to the present petition.

¶9

The counsel for the petitioner despite repeated queries has not been able to point out as to how from a plain reading of the said application the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 are attracted.

¶10

It is not disputed that the petitioner, i.e. defendant in the suit, had filed his written statement as far back as on 7.2.2013, and the proceedings are at an advanced stage with the parties having already led their evidence and even the defendant witnesses have been examined. The order dated 24.1.2019 clearly records that the case was at the stage of arguments.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Sudeep Harkauli has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be bonafide and the same has been filed deliberately to delay the disposal of the suit.

¶12

The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how on the basis of the application dated 15.12.2016 filed by him any ground for rejection of the plaint in terms of the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is made out.

¶13

No material error or illegality has been pointed in the order dated 24.1.2019 passed by the court below.

¶14

The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.4.2019

¶16

Pratima

¶17

(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Jai Kishan v. Additional District JUDGE-4, Agra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kishan v. Additional District JUDGE-4, Agra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Vishan Swaroop Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Brijesh Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Mohd. Kaleem @ Guddu @ Kaleem Baksh Vs Smt. Firoz Begum (Since Deceased) and 2 Others

Hafiz Nooruddin Vs A.C.M.M. Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar and Another

Smt. Shahnaz Vs Vth Additional District Judge, Aligarh and 8 Others