Disposed

Mohd. Rafe v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023WRIC/5073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought expeditious disposal of an appeal (C202202000001598 of 2022) to prevent prejudice from pendency. The court disposed of the petition and directed the Commissioner, Prayagraj, to conclude case proceedings expeditiously within six months, with provisions for personal appearance if lawyers fail to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to conclude proceedings of Appeal No.C202202000001598 of 2022 expeditiously within six months; personal appearance permitted if lawyers do not cooperate.

Mohd. Rafe Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5073 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohd. Rafe Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶3

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Appeal No.C202202000001598 of 2022 (Mohd. Rafe v. Ahmad Ullah & Ors.) within stipulated period.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and therefore this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2-Commissioner, Prayagraj, Division-Prayagraj to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶9

In case, the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case. However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the material available on record.

¶10

Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Jyotsana

¶11

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Rafe v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rafe v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Ajeet and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 14 Others

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

Jagdish Narayan Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nepal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 39 Others