Disposed

Baby Singh and Another v. Smt. Rajpati Devi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021A227/2373/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge High Court held that it cannot direct a subordinate court to decide a civil suit within a fixed period under Article 227, citing precedent. However, it directed the subordinate court to dispose of a pending interim injunction application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Civil Judge to dispose of the pending application for interim injunction within three months of receiving this order after hearing parties.

Baby Singh and Another Vs Smt. Rajpati Devi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2373 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Baby Singh And Another Respondent :- Smt. Rajpati Devi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶6

"(a) Issue an order or direction commanding the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushinagar at Padrauna to decide the Civil Suit No. 157 of 2020 (Smt. Rajpati Devi Vs. Baby Singh) within the time period fixed by the Hon'ble Court without giving any undue adjournments at the instance of the Plaintiff/Respondent.

¶7

(b) Issue an order or direction commanding the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushinagar at Padrauna to decide the application no. 7C for interim injunction under order 39 rule 1 C.P.C., is presently pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushinagar at Padrauna within the time period fixed by the Hon'ble Court without giving any undue adjournments at the instance of the Plaintiff/Respondent."

¶8

From the perusal of record it reveals that the Civil Suit No.157 of 2020 was filed claiming relief of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. An application 7C was also filed for temporary injunction before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushinagar at Padrauna. It appears that the said application for temporary injunction has remained pending since then.

¶9

A Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Hence prayer (a) of the petitioner is rejected .

¶10

However, as the temporary injunction application filed in Civil Suit No. 157 of 2020 (Smt.Rajpati Devi vs. Baby Singh) is pending since 2020, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushinagar at Padrauna is directed to make every endeavour to disposed of the said application (7C) in accordance with law, if

¶11

there is no legal obstruction/impediment in deciding the same, preferably within a period of next three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court, after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶12

Writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.7.2021 Kushal

Baby Singh and Another v. Smt. Rajpati Devi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Singh and Another v. Smt. Rajpati Devi and 3 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

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

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

Ayodhya and 3 Others Vs Parasuram

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs Balkrishna Mishra and 2 Others

Akanchha Pal Vs Laxmi Singh and 3 Others