Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the trial court within two weeks; the trial court to consider it, pass appropriate orders, and if of the view that urgent disposal is required, conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No. 15, Sultanpur to consider and decide the long-pending Execution Case No. 9 of 2017 expeditiously.

Court's answer

In view of the facts, limited interference is called for, considering that the suit proceedings have been pending for the last 50 years.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the trial court, before whom the execution case is pending, detailing the urgency along with an application for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings.

Key takeaways

If such an application is moved within the next two weeks, the trial court shall consider it and pass appropriate orders thereon.ratio¶12
If the trial court is of the view that the matter requires to be disposed of urgently, it shall accordingly proceed and conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No. 15, Sultanpur to decide Execution Case No. 9 of 2017 (Lala Ram Narain Vs. Bhagauti Singh), arising out of Original Suit No. 17 of 1966 (suit for cancellation of sale deed decreed on 09.05.1968, affirmed in appeal on 30.11.1974; Second Appeal No. 392 of 1976 dismissed in 2010 for want of prosecution and restoration rejected in 2013), expeditiously. Held: limited interference called for given 50-year pendency of the suit proceedings; liberty granted to the petitioner to move an application detailing urgency before the trial court within two weeks, whereupon the trial court shall consider it, pass appropriate orders, and if it considers urgent disposal necessary, conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously. Petition disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.; Order Date 10.4.2024; Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29273.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29273

Court No. - 7

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1544 of 2024

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

Heard Shri Ashutosh Pandey, along with Shri Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No. 15, Sultanpur to consider and decide the Execution Case No. 9 of 2017 (Lala Ram Narain Vs. Bhagauti Singh) arising out of Original Suit No. 17 of 1966 expeditiously.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that suit proceedings were initiated by one Lala Ram Narain for cancellation of the sale deed. The said suit was decreed on 09.05.1968, against which, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed on 30.11.1974 and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed. It has further been submitted that a second appeal in this regard being Second Appeal No. 392 of 1976 was also dismissed in 2010 for want of prosecution and even the restoration application was also rejected in 2013.

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that

the litigation is pending since 1967 and execution case is pending since 2017, which requires to be expedited.

In the aforesaid facts, limited interference is called for considering the fact that the suit proceedings are pending for the last 50 years. A liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the trial court, before whom, the execution case is pending detailing the urgency along with application for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings. In case such an application is moved in next two weeks, the trial court shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon and in case, he is of the view that the matter requires to be disposed of urgently, he shall accordingly proceed and conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, this petition is disposed of.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Virendra

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