Dismissed

Laljee Yadav v. Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024/4261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought directions to the trial court to prevent unnecessary adjournments. The High Court found the petitioner had initially misled the court about the status of a temporary injunction, warranting no interference. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the petition was dismissed.

Laljee Yadav Vs Civil Judge Junior Division… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61098

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4261 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Laljee Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda Pratapgarh And 6 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunda, Pratapgarh for not granting any unnecessary adjournment contrary to the provision contained in Order XVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC and to decide Original Suit No.356 of 2014, expeditiously.

¶10

The petitioner is defendant in the suit and in response to a question put by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed that no temporary injunction order is operating against the defendant. However, his submission is that long pendency of suit is creating unnecessary disputes between the parties.

¶11

A perusal of the ordersheet of the suit annexed with the petitioner indicates that some of the dates were adjourned because the petitioner himself was absent and on some dates the advocates were on strike.

¶12

While the Court had started dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that initially an order of temporary injunction was passed against him, which was set aside in appeal. The appellate order has been assailed before

¶13

this Court and this Court has passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶14

From the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that initially he misled this Court by stating that no order of temporary injunction is operating against the petitioner and when this Court started dictating the order, he has disclosed that an order directing the parties to maintain status has been passed by this Court and apparently, some other petition is pending before this Court.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason, to make any interference in the proceedings pending before the trial court by issuing a direction in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 KR

¶18

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

Laljee Yadav v. Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laljee Yadav v. Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda Pratapgarh and 6 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

Dipak Kumar vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Prajapati Director, Ground Water Deptt. Lko.

Rahul @ Monu Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

X Minor of Case Crime No. 126/2024 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Laljee Yadav vs Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Girjawati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Kumar Bajpai vs Rent Authority/a.D.M. (Finance and Revenue),Raebareli and 2 Others