Disposed

Buddh Singh v. State of U.P. and 14 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023WRIC/22713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought mandamus for expedited decision of a pending partition suit and status quo. Court found permanent injunction achievable via application within the suit. Directed respondent to decide an injunction application within 10 days if moved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is given liberty to file an application for injunction within 10 days, which the respondent must decide within a further 10 days.

Buddh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141757

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22713 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Buddh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Raj Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶7

Considering the nature of the dispute and indulgence to be granted by this Court, the service of notice upon respondent Nos. 4 to 15 is being dispensed with.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to decide the partition suit bearing Computer Case No. T20221260403884 of 2022 (Buddh Singh versus Omkar and other) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously within stipulated time fixed by this Court. A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing both the parties to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit has also been prayed for.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is having 1/9 share in ancestral property in Khasra No. 109 area 3.7990 hectare situated at village Dheerpura, District Firozabad, but the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 are cultivating and sowing the crops over the entire property and are not ready for mutual partition of the land in question. It is contended that petitioner has filed a case for partition of agricultural land under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code bearing Computer Case No. T20221260403884 of 2022 (Buddh Singh versus Omkar and other) which is stated to be pending consideration before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tundla, District Firozabad. It is contended that petitioner is very old and sick person.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶11

Admittedly, the suit for partition was filed by the petitioner under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is stated to be pending.

¶12

In the opinion of the Court, the injunction sought for by this Court can very well be claimed by the petitioner by moving an appropriate application in the partition suit which is pending before respondent No. 2.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to move injunction application before respondent No. 2 and in turn, respondent No. 2 may be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the injunction application at the earliest.

¶14

Considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that since the respondent No. 2 is seized with the partition suit, it would be appropriate to direct the said respondent that in case petitioner moves an injunction application within 10 days from today the same shall be decided within a further period of 10 days on its own merit. A liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before respondent No. 2 to prepone the date fixed.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Buddh Singh v. State of U.P. and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddh Singh v. State of U.P. and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anita Pandey and Another Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and 5 Others

Sunil Sahgal vs Sanjay Gupta and Another

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqbal Khan vs Smt. Manju Bansal and Another

Sabita Yadav Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rammehar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others