The court disposed of a petition under Article 227 seeking directions to decide a partition suit within a stipulated period, noting a previous direction existed.
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. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6460 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- Dileep Kumar And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The sole prayer made in the instant petition is for issuing direction to the trial court to decide Original Suit No. 925 of 1996 within a stipulated period.
The suit has been instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff no.4) along with other persons for partition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite specific order of this court dated 13.12.2016 in matters under Article 227 No. 9753 of 2016 directing the court below to decide the suit within six months, the trial court has failed to decide the same.
Since there is already a direction by this Court for deciding the suit within six months and not to allow any adjournment, without imposing cost of Rs.1000/- per adjournment, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served in repeating the same direction. It is left open to the petitioner to bring the said order to the notice of the trial court. In case even thereafter, the trial court declines to comply with the said order in its true spirit, it shall be open to the petitioner to take such legal remedy as may be advised.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 9.9.2019 Chandan
Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Dileep Kumar
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
