Gaurav Singh v. Ram Gopal and 7 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/3063/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; direction/expediting to Civil Judge (Junior Division North), Court No. 25, Sultanpur; objection dated 10.03.2023 to Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. application; Original Suit No. 821 of 2022; interim injunction; urgency application; petition disposed with liberty; merits not entered; Lucknow Bench; Manish Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the objection before respondent no. 8; respondent no. 8 expected to decide any such application expeditiously in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and without unnecessary adjournments. ¶¶12

Gaurav Singh Vs Ram Gopal and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to respondent no. 8, the Civil Judge (Junior Division North), Court No. 25, Sultanpur, to decide the petitioner's objection dated 10.03.2023 to the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. within a time specified by this Court.

¶¶7

Court's answer

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, and without entering into the merit of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the objection before respondent no. 8.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner prefers such urgency application, respondent no. 8 is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3063 of 2024, order dated 3.7.2024: Petitioner Gaurav Singh, defendant no. 1 in Original Suit No. 821 of 2022 ('Ram Gopal and others Vs. Gaurav Singh & others') before the Civil Judge (Junior Division North), Court No. 25, Sultanpur, sought a direction to respondent no. 8 (that Civil Judge) to decide his objection dated 10.03.2023 to the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., pending since 10.03.2023. On counsel conceding that no urgency application had been moved before the Court concerned, and on counsel's request, the Court disposed of the petition without entering into the merits, granting liberty to file an urgency application before respondent no. 8 and recording the expectation that such application be decided expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties and without unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45057

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3063 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gaurav Singh Respondent :- Ram Gopal And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Pathak,Anju Tripathi,Ashutosh Tiwari,Dev Brat Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 8-the Civil Judge (Junior Division North), Court No. 25, Sultanpur to decide the objection dated 10.03.2023 filed by the petitioner, who is defendant no. 1 in the suit, against the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 821 of 2022 " Ram Gopal and others Vs. Gaurav Singh & others" within the time as specified by this Court.

¶8

It is further submitted that the objection to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. is pending since 10.03.2023.

¶9

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any application for early disposal of the objection by showing urgency in the matter before the Court concerned, it has been replied by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the objection expeditiously.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the objection before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 8 within the stipulated time fix by this Court.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency

¶13

application for early disposal of objection before respondent no. 8. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 8 shall decide the urgency application preferred by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Ashish

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaurav Singh v. Ram Gopal and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Singh v. Ram Gopal and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Abdul Rub Vs Sri Abdul Rashid

Banwari Lal Tiwari Vs Munsif MAGISTRATE-11, Gonda and 5 Others

Poonam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Prema Devi Vs Sri Shri Kishna Agrawal

Reena Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development and Anr.