Disposed

Majid Ali v. Civil Judge (Jd) District-Sitapur and 13 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024A227/102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matters under Article 227 petition, the High Court directed the Executing Court to decide Application No.5 of 2023 expeditiously after affording hearing to parties, without unnecessary adjournments, noting the underlying decree dated 1997 has become final.

What did the court decide?

The Executing Court directed to decide Execution Application No.5 of 2023 expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Majid Ali vs Civil Judge (Jd) District-Sitapur… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4576

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 102 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Majid Ali

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge (Jd) District-Sitapur And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sabir Ali

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

In pursuance of the order dated 11.01.2024, the counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶9

In view of the order proposed to be passed by the Court, notice to private respondents no. 2 to 14 is dispensed with.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court with a limited prayer that his Execution application may be decided expeditiously.

¶11

It is stated that the petitioner has instituted a suit for permanent injunction bearing Regular Suit No.762 of 1993. The said suit came to be decreed by means of judgement and decree dated 11.03.1997. The original defendants of the suit had filed a Regular Civil Appeal bearing No.46 of 1997 and the same also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.05.2001. By means of the supplementary affidavit filed today, the petitioner in Paragraph-3 has stated that the private respondents have neither filed any recall application against the order of dismissal of appeal for default nor any further appeal has been preferred before any Second Appellate Court and as such the order passed by the trial court has become final.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that no

¶13

gainful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending rather ends of justice can be met by directing the Executing Court to take up the Execution Application No.5 of 2023 to consider and decide the same expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments after keeping in mind that the decree is of the year 1997 which is pending before the court concerned for execution.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Executing Court shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 KR/ank

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Majid Ali v. Civil Judge (Jd) District-Sitapur and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majid Ali v. Civil Judge (Jd) District-Sitapur and 13 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

Nizam Dyeing Works Private Ltd. Thru. Director Sri Hasmat Ali Vs Civil Judge,Junior Division, South Unnao and 2 Others

Gudiya Vs Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad and 4 Others

Lalji and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

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

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

Dr. Jamal Ahmad Khan Vs Civil Judge (S.D) Malihabad Distt. Lko. and 16 Others