Disposed

Smt. Shashi Dixit v. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024A227/145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of a suit regarding a property dispute, the High Court declined to pass an interim order of expedition. The Court noted mutual delay by parties but emphasized the need to prevent misuse of the delay mechanism.

What did the court decide?

No order of expedition passed; liberty granted to move an appropriate application before the trial court.

Smt. Shashi Dixit vs Learned Additional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7028

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 145 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shashi Dixit

¶5

Respondent :- Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, Lko. And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Srivastava,Madhusudan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anagh Shukla,Ratnesh Chandra

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anagh Shukla, learned counsel for L.D.A.

¶9

The petitioner, who is defendant no2 in Regular Suit No.2470 of 2014 (Lucknow Development Authority versus Smt. Mehar Jahan and another), has approached this Court seeking an expeditious disposal of the said suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.22, Lucknow.

¶10

The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the LDA had filed the suit seeking cancellation of sale deed but for reason beyond control of the present petitioner, the matter is being delayed and as such an order of expedition be passed.

¶11

The Court by means of order dated 16.01.2024 had required the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit, which has been filed and is taken on record.

¶12

This Court wanted to ascertain the fact as to whether the petitioner was a party to the suit since the copy of the plaint which had been filed with the original paper book did not indicate so. Clarifying the aforesaid position, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is the successor in interest of the private respondent no.3 as the property in question was purchased by the petitioner from the respondent no.3 and thereafter an application for impleadment was moved by the petitioner which came to be allowed on 17.12.2015. It is further submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the present petitioner which remained pending and only on 23.02.2023 the petitioner has filed the written statement.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid as well as the material on record, apparently a fact which is evident is both the LDA as well as the petitioner are responsible for the delay inasmuch as the written statement was filed by the petitioner after about 7 years knowing-fully well that an order of impleadment has already been passed in their favour in the year 2015.

¶14

Be that as it may, while the parties themselves are responsible for the delay, it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that such misuse at the behest of any party is not allowed and the court should proceed in the matter in the manner as provided in law as there is no justification to keep the matter pending for indefinite period without any effective proceedings, even though the parties are lithargic.

¶15

In light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to pass any order for expedition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the court concerned and in case, such an application is moved, the court shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in mind the circular issued by the High Court relating to expeditious of suits.

¶16

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

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 KR

¶19

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

Smt. Shashi Dixit v. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashi Dixit v. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suryabhan and 11 Others Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Gond Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and Others

Smt. Litesh Chauhan Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow and 2 Others

Col. Shishir Srivastava Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Another

Sajia Begum @ Saziya Ansari vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri and Another

Mahtab Fatma vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Another