Disposed

Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan v. Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko. and 16 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court took ample satisfaction that a suit for partition pending since 2010 requires prioritisation. It dispensed with notices to private respondents and directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously within eight months without adjournments under the action plan, adding that it did not examine the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge (S.D), Malihabad to decide Regular Suit No.191 of 2010 on priority and within eight months, dispensing with notices to private respondents no. 2,3,4, and 5/1 to 5/13.

Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan Vs Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3013

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 110 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko. And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swati Bisaria,Azam Shafeequi,Viplav Sahu

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by the Court, notice to private respondents no. 2,3,4 and 5/1 to 5/13 is dispensed with.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction for the court of Civil Judge (S.D), Malihabad, District - Lucknow to decide the Regular Suit No.191 of 2010, which is pending seeking a relief of partition therein.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid submission and from the perusal of the extract of the ordersheet which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1 and also noticing that the parties to the suit are duly represented and upon exchange of pleadings, issues have been framed on 06.10.2018. It is further submitted that thereafter by moving one application on the other, the said proceedings are pending and the plaintiff respondent no.2 and 3 have also not filed their evidence as yet and the petitioner is suffering on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the plaintiff.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the extract of the ordersheets brought on record as Annexure No.1 and finding that a suit for partition is pending since 2010, this Court is of the clear opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending rather ends of justice can be met by directing the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow to take up the Regular Suit No.191 of 2010 on priority basis and shall endeavour to decide the same most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of eight months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the court concerned. It is also provided that since the matter is of the 2010, it must be under the action plan of the court concerned

¶12

and considering the same the court shall move to decide the case as such.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 KR/ank

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan v. Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko. and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan v. Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko. and 16 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nizam Dyeing Works Private Ltd. Thru. Director Sri Hasmat Ali Vs Civil Judge,Junior Division, South Unnao and 2 Others

Gudiya Vs Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad and 4 Others

Lalji and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Devesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Sushila vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Nishant Rastogi @ Nishant Kumar Rastogi Vs Learned Civil Judge (J/D) West, Hardoi and 3 Others