Disposed

Jang Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 27 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023WRIC/6894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of a pending revision application. It held that a direction for disposal was premature as the petitioner was not yet impleaded. It directed the Additional Commissioner to conclude the impleadment proceedings within two months of service of the certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Commissioner to conclude the proceedings of the impleadment application expeditiously within two months from the date of service of the copy of this order.

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 27 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6894 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jang Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 27 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Dev Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of impleadment application dated 20.04.2022 as well as Revision No.453 of 2011 (Computerized Case No.C-2011140000831) (Ram Kumar v. Baliram & Ors.) under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 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

Perusal of the record reveals that impleadment application dated 20.04.2022 is filed in the aforesaid revision and the petitioner has yet not been impleaded as a party to the revision, therefore, direction for expeditious disposal of revision may not be appropriate at this stage.

¶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 respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Judicial First) Varanasi Division, Varanasi to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid impleadment application expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two 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

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 J.S.P.P.C.

¶13

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

Jang Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 27 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jang Bahadur v. State of U.P. and 27 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

U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Co. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs Additional Commissioner Meerut Division and 68 Others

Naseebullah Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sant Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdeesh Prasad Tiwari Vs Honble Member of Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Tufail Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others