Disposed

Smt. Jyoti Kashyap v. Estate Late. Smt. Shakuntala Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/1756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court directed the trial court to expeditiously decide a pending application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC regarding appointment of a local investigator, amidst a pending civil suit for heirship and locker contents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to consider and decide the application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC on the next date fixed.

Smt. Jyoti Kashyap Vs Estate Late. Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28947

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1756 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Kashyap Respondent :- Estate Late. Smt. Shakuntala Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Chaturvedi

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Mohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent-Central Bank of India and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Smt. Shakuntala, mother of the petitioner, died on 17.11.2020 and the petitioner being the sole surviving heir and daughter of the deceased had to file a Civil Suit No. 2123 of 2022 for declaration that she is the legal heir of Smt. Shakuntala and also entitled to the contains of the locker maintained with the respondent-Bank.

¶9

The said civil suit was filed on 03.11.2022 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow on in Civil Suit No. 2123 of 2022 and the said suit is still pending. It is stated that even an application under Order 26, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for appointment of a local investigation/Ameen has not been disposed of.

¶10

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for appropriate direction by this Court to direct the trial court to consider and decide the said application under Order 26, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. expeditiously.

¶11

Considering the fact that the said suit is pending for the last

¶12

one year and even an application under Order 26, Rule 9 of C.P.C. has not been disposed of, it is provided that the court below shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner moved under Order 26, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. on the next date fixed or on the date thereafter in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

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

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Virendra

¶16

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

Smt. Jyoti Kashyap v. Estate Late. Smt. Shakuntala Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyoti Kashyap v. Estate Late. Smt. Shakuntala Lucknow 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

Deota Deen and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Lalta Prasad and Others Vs Ram Sumer and Others

Chhotey Lal Vs D.D.C. Faizabad and Others

Smt. Binwant Kaur and 4 Others vs the General Officer Commading-in Chief(Appellate Authority)Central Command, Lko. and Another

Smt. Somwati and 2 Others vs Civil Judge Senior Division Hardoi and Another

Shyam Lal and 2 Ors. Vs D.D.C. Faizabad and 3 Ors.