Disposed

Suryabhan and 11 Others v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 227, the High Court dismissed a petition urging expedite disposal of a pending interim injunction application. The Court cited a Circular directing six-month time limits but did not interfere, granting liberty to approach the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the trial court with the Circular; trial court to pass appropriate orders.

Suryabhan and 11 Others Vs Civil Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3569

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 127 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Suryabhan And 11 Others Respondent :- Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by the Court, notice to private respondents no. 2 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court with the limited prayer that his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed in Original Suit No.645 of 2022 (Suryabhan and others versus Smt. Lakhraji and others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad may be decided expeditiously.

¶10

The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners as plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction which is engaging the attention of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad registered as Case No.645 of 2022. It is also urged that the petitioners had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the said suit upon which notices were issued to the defendants by means of order dated 23.09.2022. It is further submitted that the defendants no.3 of the suit, Smt. Jaikala has been served and the time was granted to file written statements/objections to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. yet despite repeated dates, no objection has been filed. It is further urged that the matter is now listed on 21.01.2024 and in the aforesaid circumstances, some expedite order be passed so that the application for interim injunction can be decided expeditiously.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and also perusal of the extracts of the ordersheets which have been brought on record as Annexure No.4, it appears that the service on defendant no.3 alone has been recorded in the ordersheet, however, there is nothing to indicate that the defendants no.1, 2 and 4 of the suit has been served or not.

¶12

Considering the fact that the application for interim

¶13

injunction is pending and this Court takes notice of the Circular issued by this Court on the Administrative side which is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

¶14

"However, as far as Paper No. 6C is concerned, this Court has issued a Circular Letter dated 16.8.2017, which is quoted as under:

¶15

"Through Registered Post/E-mail

¶16

From,

¶17

Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, HJS, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶18

To,

¶19

All the District & Sessions Judges, Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶20

C.L. No. 24/Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 16.08.17

¶21

Sub: Time bound disposal of interim injunction application.

¶22

Madam/Sir

¶23

Hon'ble Court has directed that all the subordinate courts must ensure to dispose of applications of interim injunction within six months, failing which they shall have to record reasons in the order sheet.

¶24

I am, therefore, directed to request you to circulate the instant direction amongst all the Judicial Officers working under your supervision and control and to ensure strict compliance of the same in letter and spirit.

¶25

Yours faithfully,

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan)

¶28

No. /Admin.'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 2017.

¶29

Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:

¶30

1. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 2. P.S. to all the Hon'ble Judges at Allahabad and also at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to place the same before their Lordships for kind perusal.

¶31

3. The Director, Judicial Training & Research Institute, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶32

4. All the Judicial Officers posted in the Registry in Allahabad High Court and Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

¶33

5. The Member Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, III floor,

¶34

Jawahar Bhawan, Annexe Lucknow.

¶35

6. Section Officer, Admin. 'H' Section for compliance of guard file."

¶36

(Emphasis supplied) "

¶37

At this stage, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the liberty is granted to the plaintiffspetitioners to approach the trial court and move an appropriate application along with the order passed by this Court wherein aforesaid Circular has been quoted and in case, if such an application is moved, the trial court shall take note of it and pass appropriate orders in the light of the Circular.

¶38

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

¶39

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶40

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 KR/ank

¶41

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

Suryabhan and 11 Others v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryabhan and 11 Others v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indrabhan Singh Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Gonda and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Malihabad, District Lucknow and 4 Others

Asha Devi Vs the Civil Judge (J.D) Purwa Distt. Unnao and 2 Others

Mahila Seva Sansthan Evam Prashikshan Samiti,Pratapgarh Thru. Its Secy. Raj Kumar vs Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kunda, Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Vijay Pratap vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lucknow and 4 Others

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