Dismissed

Ram Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024A227/365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 matter, the Court examined a petition seeking expedited execution proceedings. Noting discrepancies between the petitioner's order sheets and certified copies provided by the respondent's counsel, the Court dismissed the petition, citing insufficient correct records and an ongoing endeavour to expedite the matter by the Presiding Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500/- payable within two weeks; receipt to be filed.

Ram Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12613

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 365 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Shri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 4 which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel who was requested by the Court to seek instructions regarding the veracity of the order sheets which have been filed by the present petitioner alongwith the petition seeking expedition of the execution proceedings said to be pending since 2001. Shri Mehrotra has provided the copy of written instructions alongwith the certified copies of the entire order sheets, the same is taken on record.

¶9

From the perusal of the aforesaid instructions, it transpires that the Presiding Officer of the Execution Court has taken charge only on 20.11.2023. It has further been stated that the Presiding Officer has stated that an endeavour will be made to decide the execution proceedings within a period of three months provided the counsel for the parties also co-operate.

¶10

Having taken note of the aforesaid and considering that the extract of the order-sheets which have been filed by the petitioner at running page 52 and 53 of the paper book does not declare or reflect the correct proceedings. Comparing the same to the extract of the order sheets which are certified copies provided by Shri

¶11

Mehrotra, it reflects a different picture altogether, this necessarily leads to the inference that the order sheets filed by the petitioner are not accurate or correct copies.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reason that the petitioner has not provided the correct copies and impression was given that the matter is being listed for orders without any substantive hearing whereas the order sheets indicate that on few occasions on account of Members of Bar were abstaining from judicial work, the proceedings could not be substantively taken forward. It is in view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Also noticing that the Presiding officer is already endeavouring that he shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

Accordingly the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2500/-, the same shall be payable by the petitioner with the District Legal Aid Services Authority, Lucknow within a period of two weeks from today and a receipt be filed in this case.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.2.2024 ank

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

Onkar Nath Vs D.D.C.

Faqire and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Amzad Shah Vs D.D.C.Sultanpur and Others

Mehandi Hashan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Another

Neelam Singh and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Avar Khand Musafirkhana Distt. Sultanpur and 3 Others

Brahma Nand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others