Disposed

Sheodan Singh v. Shree Niwas and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2019WRIC/44614/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a filed writ petition challenging orders in underlying civil proceedings. The court directed the Civil Judge to decide the pending suit within one year, vacated the interim stay order, and communicated the order to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bulandshahar was directed to decide the underlying civil suit within one year; the writ petition was disposed of; the interim order dated 11.9.2013 was vacated.

Sheodan Singh Vs Shree Niwas and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44614 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Sheodan Singh Respondent :- Shree Niwas And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shelendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

No one appears for the petitioner or the respondents even in the revised call of the cause list.

¶6

The preset writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahar in Misc. Appeal No.78 of 2010, Sheodan Singh Vs. Shree Niwas and others and the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division Bulandshahar in Original Suit No.321 of 2012. The allegations in brief, are that the Courts below have relied upon the report of the Lekhpal dated 15.12.2010 while deciding the injunction application. The allegations are that the said report was not based upon the actual measurement on the spot but was based upon the map which cannot be considered as exclusive proof of the actual measurement on the spot. On 11.9.2013, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the Lekhpal dated 15.10.2012 has been made basis for rejecting the petitioner's injunction application, which was not based on the actual measurement of spot, but it was based on the basis of the map, which cannot be conclusive proof of the actual area on the spot. Unless the actual area on the spot was measured, the injunction application of the petitioner could not be rejected. Matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice.

¶9

Steps be taken within two weeks.

¶10

As an interim measure, without prejudice to right and contention of the parties, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with respect to nature and possession over the land in dispute till the next date of listing."

¶11

Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending since 2013 and pertains only with regard to the injunction, ends

¶12

of justice would be served if suitable directions are issued for the decision of the civil Suit No.321 of 2012 which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bulandshahar, as such the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bulandshahar is directed to decide the Suit No.321 of 2012, Sheodan Singh Vs. Shree Niwas and others, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said order. The interim order dated 11.9.2013 stands vacated. Office is directed to communicate the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bulandshahar about this order forthwith. Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Hasnain

Sheodan Singh v. Shree Niwas and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheodan Singh v. Shree Niwas and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahfooz Ahmad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Jauvab Husain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ramhit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Kumar Alias Rajan Vs Smt. Bimla Devi Simla Devi and 7 Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Addl. District Judge/Special Judge M.A.C.T. and Others

Baboo Hasan and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.