Allowed

Vishwajeet Pathak v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021WRIC/27025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, for the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, to decide a partition suit within three months of the order's production, citing the six-year delay after the preliminary decree.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to decide the partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, with all expedition, preferably within three months.

Vishwajeet Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27025 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vishwajeet Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachcha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Bachcha Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶4

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, District Ballia to decide Case No. 586 of 2013 (Computerized Case No. T2013150920040) (Sarvdev Pathak and others Vs. Rishidev Pathak and others), under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, within an stipulated period of time fixed by this Court.

¶5

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that preliminary decree has already been passed in aforementioned case as is clearly evidenced by order dated 10.12.2015. However, in spite of the fact that a period of almost six years has rolled by from the date of passing of aforementioned order, the final decree has not been passed. He, therefore, submits that non disposal of aforementioned partition suit even after expiry of a period of almost six years from the date of aforementioned order cannot be said to be justified in any manner. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner submits that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent 2 to decide aforementioned partition suit in a time bound manner. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioners is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶6

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶7

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, District Ballia to decide Case No. 586 of 2013 (Computerized Case No. T2013150920040) (Sarvdev Pathak and others Vs. Rishidev Pathak and others), under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, filed by the petitioner with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified/computerized copy of

¶8

this order which shall be filed by petitioners in above mentioned petition suit by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶9

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 HSM

Vishwajeet Pathak v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwajeet Pathak v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad and Another Vs Board of Revenue and 7 Ors.

Ramesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Geeta Devi Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Sarvjeet Singh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anchal Vs State of U.P.