The High Court dismissed a writ petition holding it to be a private dispute requiring adjudication by a competent civil court under common law rather than invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 due to multiple questions of fact.
Writ petition dismissed as misconceived.
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 :- WRIT - C No. - 15506 of 2020
Petitioner :- Indra Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The dispute raised in this writ petition is purely private dispute, which can be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction under common law and not by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it involved in multiple questions of fact.
The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 Pramod Tripathi
(Prakash Padia,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J)
Indra Devi And Another
State Of U.P. And 17 Others
Abhinava Upadhya
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
