Disposed

Ram Sewak Yadav v. Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court No. 1 Gonda and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/3332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a petition under Article 227 praying for directions to expedite a pending suit under the Guardian and Wards Act. The court granted liberty to file an urgency application and directed the lower court to dispose of it quickly.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move urgency application; direction to Family Court to decide urgency application expeditiously after hearing.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49532

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3332 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Sewak Yadav Respondent :- Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court No. 1 Gonda And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhulika Yadav,Anubhav Yadav,Shyam Sundar

¶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. 1-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Gonda to decide the case number- 70/2020, under section- 7 Guardian and Wards Act 1890 (Ram Sewak Yadav Versus Abhay alias Nirmal Yadav and another) pending before him, within the time as specified by this Court.

¶8

On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the case expeditiously.

¶9

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 aforesaid case before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no.1 within the stipulated time fix by this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

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 application for early disposal of aforesaid case before the respondent no. 1. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 1 shall decide the urgency

¶12

application preferred by the petitioner looking into the urgency mentioned therein expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in case there is no legal impediment and if any adjournment is unavoidable only short adjournment may be given.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.7.2024

¶14

Anuj Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sewak Yadav v. Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court No. 1 Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak Yadav v. Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court No. 1 Gonda and 2 Others

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

Patan Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Distt. Bahraich and Another

Sai Sahai Singh @ Sai Shay Singh Vs Civil Judge (Jd) North, Room No. 25, Sultanpur and Another

Diwakar Yadav Vs Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and Another

Simpal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Nagesh Chandra Pathak Vs Smt. Neelam

M/S Shipra Trading Company, Noida Thru. Proprietor Mrs. Vinita Garg and Others Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and Another