Disposed

Suman Shukla v. Rajendra Prasad and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024/4561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench dismissed a petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of a 20-year-old civil suit. The Court found no evidence filed by the plaintiff and held that delay due to parties' death does not justify non-filing of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition was disposed of; not entertained. Petitioner directed to move appropriate application before the concerned court.

Suman Shukla Vs Rajendra Prasad and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66495

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4561 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Suman Shukla Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the Original Suit no.1208 of 2001 (Rajendra vs Ramsunder) which is said to be pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court no.29, Sultanpur.

¶8

Having considered the aforesaid request and noticing the material available on record before the Court in the instant petition, it appears that though suit was filed in the year, 2001 and the extracts of the order sheet which have been placed on record indicates that the issues were framed on 07.05.2012 yet there is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiff who is the petitioner before the Court has filed the examination in chief or evidence. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that the matter is pending on account certain exigencies attributable to the Court.

¶9

It is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner since some parties had died accordingly, the matter remain pending for substitution. However, extracts of the order sheet do not indicate that despite the fact certain parties have died, the plaintiffs/petitioners was prevented from filing the evidence.

¶10

In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the court concerned and needless to say that in case, if such an application is moved, the court concerned taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year, 2001 and more than two decades have lapsed shall take up the matter in terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court on administrative side.

¶11

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Harshita

¶13

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

Suman Shukla v. Rajendra Prasad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Shukla v. Rajendra Prasad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Susheela Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Arif Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

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

Ram Shankar vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and Another

Hari Ram (Dead) Thru 1/1 Vijay Amrit Raj and Ors. vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj, Gonda and Others