Disposed

Smt. Jaitunnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023WRIC/9165/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ court disposed of a petition filed by Smt. Jaitunnisha seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of a pending revenue case under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to conclude proceedings within ten months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to conclude proceedings of the pending case within ten months; personal appearance permitted if lawyers do not cooperate.

Smt. Jaitunnisha Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9165 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Jaitunnisha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶3

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 3885 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T202017630403885) (Smt. Jaitunnisha vs Rafique), under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dumariyaganj, district Siddharth Nagar.

¶4

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.

¶5

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

¶6

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 respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶7

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.

¶8

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Sazia

¶9

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Jaitunnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jaitunnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

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. Malti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramdas and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

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

Babu Nandan Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Hira Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Babu Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others