The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Shiv Kumar for not deciding a revision application. The court held the petition lacked maintainability due to non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, specifically other revisionists involved in the same matter.
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. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29457 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Shankar Tripathi,Archana Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Hari Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2.
Perused the record.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Additional Commissioner-I, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide Revision No.1171 of 2017 (Computer Case No. C- 201702001171) (Ram Baran and Others Vs. Nanku Lal and Others) within a time period fixed by this Court.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel contends that as many as six revisionists had filed afore-mentioned revision. However, present writ petition has been filed only by Shiv Kumar and five other revisionists have neither been impleaded as co-petitioners nor as proforma respondents in present writ petition. Consequently, present writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. As such, present writ petition is not maintainable and, therefore, liable to be dismissed by this Court.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present writ petition fails and is therefore liable to be dismissed at this stage.
It is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage.
However, it is provided that certified copy of the impugned order shall be returned to learned counsel for petitioner after obtaining photocopy of the same to be retained on record.
Order Date :- 10.11.2021 Saif
Shiv Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
