Allowed

Devendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023WRIC/28344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought mandate to decide a suit pending for over 31 years. Court directed SDM to conclude proceedings within three months after framing issues and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No.2 to conclude proceeding of pending suit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence within three months from date of production of certified copy.

Devendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204036

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28344 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shridhar Tripathi, learned counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing respondent no.2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, District- Prayagraj to decide the Case Nos.68/73/97/104/141/243/4/5/5/2007-2008 (Computerized Case No.T200802389), under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act within stipulated period.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforementioned suit for declaration filed on behalf of the petitioners is pending since 1991. He further submitted that the defendants are appearing in the pending suit but the same has not been decided in spite of expiry of more than 31 years.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents submitted that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. He further submitted that restoration proceedings were pending in the aforementioned suit, as such, the delay has been caused in deciding the matter.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing respondent no.2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, District- Prayagraj to conclude the proceeding of aforementioned pending suit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Rameez

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar and 3 Others 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

Asraf and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subodh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others