Dismissed¶¶18

Smt. Kalawati and Ors. v. Additional District Judge Unnao and Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023WRIC/1000676/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 1000676 of 2010; decided 17.10.2023 by Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Article 227; amendment from Article 226 to Article 227; revision under section 115 CPC; jurisdiction issue no.8; Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000 (Smt. Sukh Rani vs. Santosh Kumar and others); Additional District Judge Unnao; concurrent findings; no interference; liberty to raise issue in regular appeal; substitution of subsequent purchasers on death of petitioner no.1 Smt. Kalawati; expeditious disposal of suit; neutral citation 2023:AHC-LKO:68121.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the application under Article 227 was dismissed with directions for expeditious conclusion of Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000 and transmission of the order to the court concerned. ¶¶18

Smt. Kalawati and Ors. Vs Additional District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, should interfere with the concurrent orders upholding the Civil Court's jurisdiction (issue no.8) to hear Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000.

¶¶15

Court's answer

Since only an issue (issue no.8 on jurisdiction) was decided by the courts below, the Court declines to interfere with the findings recorded by both the courts; the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the said issue when the regular appeal is filed after dismissal of the suit.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The amendment application is allowed and the petition is treated as an application under Article 227 instead of Article 226.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

The substitution application is allowed following the death of petitioner no.1 Smt. Kalawati, the subsequent purchasers being already arrayed as petitioners no.2 to 7.ratio¶¶12
The application under Article 227 is dismissed, with a direction to conclude the further proceedings in Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000 (Smt. Sukh Rani vs. Santosh Kumar and others) with all expedition in accordance with law.ratio¶¶18
The Registry of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the order to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition originally filed under Article 226 and, on amendment, treated as an application under Article 227, assailing the order dated 22.10.2009 dismissing the revision under section 115 CPC against the Civil Court's order dated 16.03.2007, by which issue no.8 concerning the jurisdiction of the court to hear Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000 (Smt. Sukh Rani vs. Santosh Kumar and others) was decided in favour of the court's jurisdiction. Held: as only an issue was decided, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below, leaving the petitioners at liberty to challenge the said issue in the regular appeal after dismissal of the suit. Substitution of petitioners no.2 to 7 (subsequent purchasers) was allowed following the death of sole original petitioner no.1 Smt. Kalawati. The application under Article 227 was dismissed with a direction to conclude the suit with all expedition, and the Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the court concerned.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:68121

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000676 of 2010

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Kalawati And Ors. Respondent :- Additional District Judge Unnao And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C..,H.A.B. Sinha

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

I.A. No 5 of 2023

¶7

An application has been filed proposing to amend the petition from Article 226 to Article 227.

¶8

The amendment application is allowed.

¶9

The petition is treated to application under Article 227.

¶10

C.M. Application No.75279 of 2011

¶11

The application was filed stating that during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner no.1 Smt. Kalawati died, the subsequent purchasers from the petitioner no.1 are already arrayed as petitioners no. 2 to 7.

¶12

In view thereof, the substitution application is allowed.

¶13

Order on merit.

¶14

Heard the counsel for the petitioner representing the petitioners no. 2 to 7.

¶15

I have perused the record. The proceedings were initiated against the order dated 16.03.2007 whereby, an issue no.8 was claimed with regard to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit. The Civil Court vide an order dated 16.03.2007 dismissed the said application upholding that the court had the jurisdiction to hear the suit. The said order was challenged by preferring a revision under section 115 of CPC. The said revision came to be dismissed on 22.10.2009.

¶16

Considering the fact that only an issue was decided, I do not propose to interfere with the findings recorded by both the courts. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the said issue also when the regular appeal is filed after the dismissal of the suit.

¶17

No good ground for interference are made out.

¶18

The application under Article 227 is dismissed with direction to conclude the further proceedings in Regular Suit No. 348 of 2000 (Smt. Sukh Rani vs. Santosh Kumar and others) with all expedition in accordance with law.

¶19

Registry of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 VNP/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Kalawati and Ors. v. Additional District Judge Unnao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalawati and Ors. v. Additional District Judge Unnao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Kamla Prasad Shashtri Mahavidyalaya,Banda Thru. Its Manager Vijay Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education,Lko. and 4 Others

C/M, Madarsa Ashraful Uloom, Amethi Thru. Manager, Akhlaque Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lucknow and 3 Others

Kavya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Madhyamik Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Aneeta Verma Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and Another

Hiren Gupta @ Babloo Vs District Judge Distt. Sitapur and Others

Mishri Lal Vs Additional District Judge Court No. 8 Barabanki and Others