The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking direction for the early disposal of a pending partition suit. The court found that although the suit was pending for 24 years, evidence proceedings were restarted after an amendment application, precluding immediate disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55553
Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3774 of 2024
Petitioner :- Nita Singh And Another Respondent :- Civil Judge J.D. Court 38 Sultanpur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh,Sandeep Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
The present petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the suit for partition bearing no. 294 of 2000 (Smt. Rajdei vs. Prithvipal and Ors.) preferred by the petitioner, which is pending since last 24 years.
It is further submitted that the opportunity of crossexamination of the plaintiff witness has already been closed by order dated 08.03.2016 and thereafter the opportunity was given to the defendants to produce their witnesses but when they had failed to produce any witness, the said opportunity has also been closed. Thereafter, the dates are being given and the matter is still pending.
This Court after going through the order-sheets has found that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application bearing no. 123Ga along with list of documents. Thereafter again the proceedings of evidence has been started and on 01.07.2019, an amendment application has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff.
Then there is a reference of order of this Court in the order dated 17.02.2021, the counsel for the petitioner is not aware of that order, so for all practical purposes, the evidence etc. have started again after the amendment application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, hence, no such direction for early disposal of the case can be issued at this stage.
The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking direction for early disposal of a suit pending for 24 years merits allowance when the court finds that evidence proceedings were restarted after an amendment applicatio
Whether the court can issue direction for early disposal given the ambiguity in the record regarding the continuation of proceedings.
Nita Singh and Another
Civil Judge J.D. Court 38 Sultanpur and Others
Nitesh Kumar Tewary
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
