The High Court, while hearing the appeal of Bindeshwari vs. Sukhram, sought to expedite proceedings. The Court directed the lower court to avoid unnecessary adjournments to decide the matter expeditiously.
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. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 250 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sukhram Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamwant Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The prayer made in this petition for deciding the Appeal No. 388 of 2018 (Bindeshwari Vs. Sukhram) instituted in the year 2018 within a stipulated period of time.
At this stage, this Court does not seek any reason to prioritize the hearing of the proceedings over other cases.
Faced with this, Sri Dinanath learned counsel holding brief of Sri Jamwant Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief sought in this writ petition. He recasts the relief and submits that the court below may not grant unnecessary adjournments as the same delays the decision unnecessarily.
It is expected that the court below shall make all endeavors to decide the proceedings expeditiously as per law. The Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Nadeem Ahmad
Sukhram
State Of U P
2 Others
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
