Disposed

Shishir Kumar v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024A227/1323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought directions to a civil judge to decide a pending partition suit between real brothers expeditiously. Relying on Supreme Court directions in Yashpal Jain, the court dispensed with notice and ordered the trial court to conclude proceedings quickly without examining the petitioner's case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge to conclude the proceedings in Civil Suit No.1814/2018 expeditiously in accordance with Supreme Court directions in Yashpal Jain.

Shishir Kumar vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23272

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1323 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Respondent :- Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Rao

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"a. direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow to decide the Civil Suit No.1814/2018, titled as Shishir Kumar vs. Sharad Chaddha and others, which is pending before opposite party no.1 within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶9

With regard to relief sought, quoted above, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the partition suit is pending between real brothers and in the suit in issue, written statement has been filed and thereafter based upon the pleadings, the issues were framed before the trial court on 14.05.2019, however, the trial court is not proceeding in the matter and in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Yashpal Jain Versus Sushila Devi reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 , the trial court should conclude the trial expeditiously. The relevant paragraph no.47, being relevant reads as under:-

¶10

" 47. The following directions are issued:

¶11

i. All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.

¶12

ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.

¶13

iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings

¶14

are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on dayto-day basis.

¶15

iv. In the event of the party's failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.

¶16

v. Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis.

¶17

vi. Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.

¶18

vii. The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.

¶19

viii. The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).

¶20

ix. The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.

¶21

x. At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately

¶22

and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.

¶23

xi. The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.

¶24

xii. The Committee so constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly."

¶25

Considering the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Apex Court as also the facts indicated above, particularly that the dispute is between the real brothers, this petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1, to conclude the proceedings with regard to case in issue, quoted in the prayer clause, most expeditiously, after taking note of observation of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Yashpal Jain (Supra).

¶26

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶28

Order Date :- 18.3.2024

¶29

Jyoti/-

¶30

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

Shishir Kumar v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishir Kumar v. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sundar @ Sundar Lal Vs the Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and Ors.

Jumayee Vs D.D.C and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jyoti Sharma Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma Vs Presidding Officer Debt. Recovery Tribunal Lko. and Another

Munna Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Kumar Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 2 Others