Disposed

Aslam v. State of U.P. and 22 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023WRIC/6360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of a pending suit causing prejudice to the petitioner. The Court disposed of the matter, directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conclude the proceedings within six months. The order mandates personal appearance if lawyers fail to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude proceedings of Suit No. 02316 of 2020 expeditiously within six months.

Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6360 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Aslam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 22 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Naushad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Girdhar Prasad Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Girdhar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.11.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Suit No. 02316 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T202015090302326) (Naim Khan and others Vs. Manoj Kumar and others) within a stipulated period.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Ballia (respondent no.2) 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 AKShukla/-

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aslam v. State of U.P. and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam v. State of U.P. and 22 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

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhalak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Beni Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others