Dismissed

Rajeswari Devi v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow heard a petition under Article 227 seeking expedited disposal of a suit pending since 1998. The petitioner alleged that the lower court's listing for cross-examination had been postponed by over nine months due to incomplete order-sheets. The High Court did not accept the petition based on the current information available.

What did the court decide?

The petition for expeditious disposal was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make an application before the court concerned.

Rajeswari Devi Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7038

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 149 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajeswari Devi

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Shukla,Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of a suit which is pending since the year 1998.

¶9

It was pointed out that the matter is being listed for crossexamination of P.W.-1 and it was pointed out that a long date of about 9 months has been fixed. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the Court on 16.01.2024 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

2. The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the Original Suit No.69 of 1998. However, from the perusal of the extract of the order-sheet, it appears that as per the petitioner, the matter was listed on 29.05.2023 and since the Members of Bar were abstaining from the juridical work. The case is now listed on 05.02.2024. The record also indicates that this matter is being repeatedly listed for cross-examination of P.W.1.

¶12

3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Court has called upon Shri Gaurav Mehrotra who usually appears for the High Court to take instructions in the matter and inform the Court as to why the aforesaid suit of 1998 is pending and though the matter is listed for crossexamination of P.W.1 how comes such a long date more than nine months have been fixed.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall provide a copy of the petition to Shri Mehrotra today itself.

¶14

5. List this matter on 24th of January, 2024, as fresh, showing the name of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra in the cause list as counsel for the respondent."

¶15

Today, the counsel for the petitioner submits that it is incorrect to state that such a long date was fixed. He further submits that upon inquiring from his client, it was informed that certain other dates were also fixed in between which has not been indicated nor reflected from the extracts of the ordersheets, which have been brought on record as Annexure No.3. This apparently indicates that the ordersheets which have been annexed, do not inspire confidence as they are not complete.

¶16

In light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid petition and it is dismissed .

¶17

Having shown the disinclination to pass any expedite order, yet liberty is available to the petitioner to make an application before the court concerned and in case, if such an application is moved, the court seized of the matter shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 KR

¶19

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

Rajeswari Devi v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswari Devi v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahamood Vs Commissioner Faizabad Division and Others

Anand Pandey Vs Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Malihabad, Lko. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

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

Abdul Kalim and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector District Pratapgarh and 4 Others

Ranno Devi vs Krishna Dev and 7 Others