Disposed

Ram Nivas and Another v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023A227/452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, directed the concerned Civil Judge to decide a pending interim injunction application within three months after recording service and hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Civil Judge to decide the interim injunction application within three months, after recording satisfaction regarding service of summons and giving full opportunity of hearing.

Ram Nivas and Another Vs State of U P and 5… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 452 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Nivas And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abnish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abnish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pilibhit to decide the interim injunction application no. 8 GA under order 39 rule 1 of C.P.C. dated 24.11.2022 filed in Original Suit No. 609 of 2022 Ram Nivas and Another versus State of U.P. and others expeditiously/ within specified period as fix by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

It is submitted that the aforesaid application has remained pending though the defendants have put in appearance.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to conclude and decide the aforesaid application strictly in accordance with law and after recording satisfaction regarding service of summons and giving full opportunity of hearing to the appearing parties, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months positively from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

It is clarified that in the event, this order could not be carried out within the time frame fixed for any technical reason, then for such delay in disposal of the appeal and pendency thereof itself shall ordinarily not be a ground sufficient enough to fasten the authority concerned with personal liability of contempt.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 IrfanUddin

¶12

Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Nivas and Another v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nivas and Another v. State of U P and 5 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

Ram Das Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Anotaher

Arshad Warsi Vs Nagar Palika Parishad and 2 Others

Shubhawati Devi and Another Vs Pawan Kumar Singh and Another

Naimuddin @ Bablu Vs Dwarika Prasad Shivhare and 3 Others

Amar Chandra @ Bau Vs Urmila Devi and Another

Balkishun Vs Ramjeet and 6 Others