Disposed

Nanhu v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20 ,Barabanki and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024A227/1711/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of a suit. Noting existing administrative directions for zero pendency of old cases, the Court rejected the prayer but granted liberty to move for expedited consideration within three weeks if urgency is established.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to move urgent application before trial court within two weeks.

Nanhu vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28031

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1711 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nanhu

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20 ,Barabanki And Another

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Singh,Ravindra Kumar Verma

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶10

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 679 of 2021 (Nanhu Vs. Radhemohan Sonkar) for permanent injunction pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20, Barabanki.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20, Barabanki, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶12

In this regard, it is noteworthy, that this Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the Courts below to obtain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old. In view of directions already issued on administrative side, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order on judicial side. Hence, the prayer is rejected.

¶13

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the suit before the trial Court. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say,

¶14

within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial Court is prima facie satisfied that a case for interference is made out it shall pass suitable direction thereon.

¶15

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 A. Verma

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

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

Nanhu v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20 ,Barabanki and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhu v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20 ,Barabanki 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

Darrshan Singh Vs Bhoodan Yogna Samiti Kheri .

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Poonam Devi Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur, Sultanpur and Others

Smt. Sangeeta Pandey and Another Vs Appellate Appointed Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gonda and 4 Others

Indu Agarwal and Another Vs U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru. Chairman Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Maurya Vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No 25 Barabanki and 3 Others