The High Court petition challenging the delay in disposal of an original suit dismissed in default was dismissed, holding that the plaintiff was responsible for the delay. Rathna Bolappo: Yam
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. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1410 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Sheela Singh Respondent :- Smt. Kusum Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present petition has been filed praying for a direction commanding the trial court to decide Original Suit No. 1814 of 2012 expeditiously and within the time fixed by the Court.
The order-sheet of the proceedings annexed with the petition discloses that the suit was dismissed in default because of the absence of the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner in the present petition vide order dated 30.10.2018.
It has been stated in the affidavit that the suit was restored on 15.7.2021. The plaintiff is responsible for the delay in disposal of the suit and no direction, at his instance, can be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the concerned trial court.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 10.3.2022 Satyam
Digitally signed by SATYAM AGRAHARI Date: 2022.03.10 14:11:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct the trial court to expeditiously decide a suit dismissed in default.
Smt. Sheela Singh
Smt. Kusum Devi
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
