Disposed

Saheela v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13 , Barabanki and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024A227/2439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the High Court was approached for expeditious disposal of a civil suit pending for over five years. The Court held that administrative directions for zero pendency were sufficient and rejected the prayer for judicial intervention, but granted liberty to approach the trial court with urgency.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for expeditious disposal was rejected; liberty granted to move urgency application before trial court.

Saheela vs Civil Judge, Junior Division… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37654

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2439 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Saheela

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13 , Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla,Arvind

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

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

¶9

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. 945 of 2012 (Mohiuddin and Others Vs. Saheela and Another) pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 13, Barabanki.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 13, Barabanki, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶11

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.

¶12

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, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial Court is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable orders thereon and proceed accordingly, in accordance with law.

¶13

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 A. Verma

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

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

Saheela v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13 , Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheela v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13 , Barabanki and 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

Salig Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Sakir Ali Vs Board or Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Phoola Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Prema Devi vs Mulema Devi

Rambeti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

Moti Lal Vs Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation,Shrawasti and 2 Others