Disposed

Syed Siraj Ali v. Naim @ Namou and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024A227/1892/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 226/227 petition, the High Court directed the Civil Judge to decide an interim injunction application filed by the petitioner in R.S. No.339/2021 with expedition, dismissing the need for issuing notice to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge to decide the interim injunction application expeditiously with expedited dates and without adjournment for the petitioner.

Syed Siraj Ali vs Naim @ Namou and 4 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30937

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1892 of 2024 Petitioner :- Syed Siraj Ali Respondent :- Naim @ Namou And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Srivastava,Ankit Srivastava,Rajneesh Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred for the following main relief:-

¶8

"....direct the Court of Civil Judge, (SD), Court No.20, Barabanki to decide the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. indexed as GA-6 in R.S. No.339/2021 expeditiously ..."

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application seeking temporary injunction filed in the suit, in issue, has neither been deposed of nor any effective order has been passed thereon despite the fact that the respondents have put in appearance and also filed written submission and as no order has been passed on the application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner is suffering from hardships and mental agony.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case, Civil Judge, (SD), Court No.20, Barabanki is directed to decide the the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed in R.S. No.339/2021 by the petitioner with expedition, if possible, on the next date fixed or on the subsequent next date fixed in the case, in issue and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶11

It is further provided that while considering the case, the Court concerned shall provide proper opportunity to the parties concerned. The petitioner herein shall not take any adjournment. The Court concerned shall also avoid unnecessary adjournments to the side opposite.

¶12

In above terms, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 19.4.2024/RKM.

¶15

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

Syed Siraj Ali v. Naim @ Namou and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Siraj Ali v. Naim @ Namou and 4 Others

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

Dhanadee Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malihabad Lucknow and Another

Smt. Saroj Singh Vs the Court of Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Haveli, Faizabad and 2 Others

Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Maya Devi Vs Civil Judge (Jd) 1ST Gonda and Another

Shaji Varghese and Another Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Gonda and 2 Others

Shameena Rizwan Vs Principal Judge Family Court Sitapur and Another