Disposed

Smt. Shail Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024/3419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, under Article 227, directed the Revenue Authority to decide a pending suit under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months. The petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking regarding adjournments, condition precedent for the order's benefit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Revenue Authority to decide the pending suit within six months; petitioner to furnish an undertaking against unnecessary adjournments.

Smt. Shail Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50493

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3419 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shail Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans,Shikha Srivastava,Yogesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of her Suit bearing Computerized No.T202204680400069, under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.3.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the suit has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.3 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending Suit bearing Computerized No.T202204680400069 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the

¶13

respondent No.3.

¶14

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.3 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shail Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shail Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 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

Abdul Hamid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Ravi Bhan Shukla and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Deshraj Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Krishna Prakash Singh vs Addl. Dist. Judge and Session Judge Dist. Gonda and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar and Another vs District Judge, Sultanpur and 2 Others

Hari Prasad and Another vs Ajeet Kumar and 3 Others