Disposed

Madhuban and Another v. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh Court No. 18 and 7 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2021A227/1389/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court found the explanation for a 32-year delay in deciding Suit No. 628 of 1988 unsatisfactory. The Court distinguished a prior precedent regarding restrictive directions and directed the trial court to conclude the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude Suit No. 628 of 1988 expeditiously within six months after hearing parties, without unnecessary adjournments, and with exemplary cost for adjournments.

Madhuban and Another Vs Civil Judge (Junior… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1389 of 2021 Petitioner :- Madhuban And Another Respondent :- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh Court No. 18 And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶4

In compliance to Court's order dated 25.02.2021 and 15.03.2021, a letter has been issued by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Court No. 18, Azamgarh addressed to the Joint Registrar (Compliance) of this Court wherein an explanation has been given why the matter has been kept pending for the last 32 years. The reasons assigned does not justify the delay and the manner in which the trial of Suit No. 628 of 1988 (Basdev and others vs. Ramchet and others) is being proceeded by the court below.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 18, Azamgarh to expeditiously decide the suit no. 628 of 1988. It is contended by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the matter has remained pending for last 32 years. From the perusal of the order-sheet appended along with the writ petition, it transpires that issues in the said suit were framed on 03.02.1990 and since then the said matter has not been decided.

¶6

Though the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) had directed that no direction can be given to the subordinate courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for expeditious disposal of the suit/ appeal, but looking to the present case where the matter has remained pending for last 32 years and despite the issues having framed by the trial court in the year 1990 itself the suit has been kept pending on one pretext or the other.

¶7

This Court finds that explanation given for the delay is not satisfactory and the court below is directed to conclude the said suit expeditiously preferably within next six months from the date of production of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court after hearing all the concerned parties, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, and if any adjournment is given, it should be with exemplary cost.

¶8

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶9

Order Date :- 12.7.2021/V.S.Singh

Madhuban and Another v. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh Court No. 18 and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuban and Another v. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh Court No. 18 and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Poonam Tiwari Vs Gorakhpur Development Authority Gorakhpur

Himanshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avnish Kumar Vs Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and 2 Others

Ranjana Vs Shri R.K. Tomar,Joint Director Directorate Horticulture and Food Processing and 2 Others

Shahjad Ali Vs Satya Prakash Narauriya, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department

Pradeep Kumar Vs Smt. Deepa Chandravanshi