Disposed

Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav v. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No. 29, Sultanpur and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/1252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought expedited disposal of a long-pending injunction application. The Court observed that administrative directions already ensured zero pendency for old cases and rejected the prayer, granting liberty to move the lower court for urgency.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for expeditious disposal rejected; liberty granted to approach trial court with application detailing urgency.

Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav Vs Addl. Civil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29827

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1252 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav Respondent :- Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No. 29, Sultanpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Bhan Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Misc. Case No. 56 of 2005 (Ram Kalap and another Vs. Maharajdeen and another) under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 29, Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case Misc. Case No. 56 of 2005 (Ram Kalap and another Vs. Maharajdeen and another), considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶10

In this regard, it is noteworthy, that this Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the Courts below to obtain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old. In view of directions already issued on administrative side, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order on judicial side. Hence, the prayer is rejected.

¶11

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move

¶12

appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the suit before the trial court. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court is prima facie satisfied that a case for interference is made out it shall pass suitable direction thereon.

¶13

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Virendra

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav v. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No. 29, Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav v. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No. 29, Sultanpur and Another

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

Ramawati Devi vs Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich and 9 Others

Gurmohan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Kheri and 3 Others

Surjan vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and 10 Others

Ramchandra and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Smt. Chandrvati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Haqeemunnisha and Another Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others