Allowed

Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2019WRIC/28393/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that applications for breach of interim injunction and amendment must be disposed of expeditiously. It directed the Sub Divisional Officer to dispose of the specific applications filed in 2016 and 2017 within six weeks of receipt of the order after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Order to Sub Divisional Officer to dispose of Application dated 19.12.2016 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. and Amendment Application dated 04.10.2017 within six weeks.

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28393 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief and no other:

¶6

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide and dispose of the application dated 19.12.2016 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. in pending suit No. 43 of 2007 and amendment application dated 04.10.2017 filed therein within some stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court"

¶7

When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Court has gone through the record with the assistance of the learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

It appears that in a suit filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 3 to this writ petition for partition under Section 176 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, an order of temporary injunction was granted on 02.08.2007 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chunar District Mirzapur. The said order of temporary injunction was violated, and, in consequence, a contempt application being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6134 of 2016 was filed before this Court invoking Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court, by its order dated 08.12.2016 declined to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 10 and directed the petitioner, who was the contempt applicant, to move an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. It appears that the said application for breach of temporary injunction order

¶9

dated 02.08.2007, was filed before the Trial Court on 19.12.2016. The order sheet of the contempt application shows that proceedings in the application for breach of temporary injunction order, are lingering on before the Sub Divisional Officer eventlessly. It goes without saying that an application for breach of temporary injunction is required to be disposed of expeditiously as it relates to something that derogates from not only the right of the party injured by the breach of injunction but the majesty of the law itself. A further prayer that has been made is to expedite disposal of an amendment application. Needless to say that an application for amendment is also required to be swiftly dealt with and not adjourned in a lethargic fashion. The order sheet of the case shows that perhaps, it was on this account that the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court fearing that the application for breach of injunction would not be dealt with the required expedition. Both applications going by their nature are required to be disposed of by the Trial Judge expeditiously, and, now, certainly within a specified period of time.

¶10

This Court may make it clear that no opinion on the merits of the parties case has been expressed and anything said in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion either on the merits of the application for breach of temporary injunction or with regard to the application for amendment, both of which shall be disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned.

¶11

Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, no notice is being issued to private respondent Nos. 3 to 7. However, in case the said respondents are aggrieved by this order, it shall be open to them to make an application in this decided matter.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Sub Divisional Officer concerned is ordered to dispose of application dated 19.12.2016, under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. in pending Suit No. 43 of 2007 and Amendment Application dated 04.10.2017 filed in the said suit by the plaintiff-petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after hearing all parties concerned.

¶13

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.9.2019 BKM/-

Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Madan Mohan Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Nihore and Others Vs Ajayab Lal

Surya Bali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Alok Vs Naib Tehsildar and Another

Reena Rai Vs Tehsildar Khajani and 4 Others