Dismissed

Ramawati v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Faizabad and Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A227/4282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of a pending suit, the court observed that the Civil Judge should not be impleaded as an opposite party following Supreme Court precedents. The petition was disposed of with a direction to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to strike out Civil Judge as opposite party; court directed Civil Judge to proceed expeditiously.

Ramawati vs Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61499

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4282 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramawati

¶5

Respondent :- Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Faizabad And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Richa Tiwari

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Smt. Richa Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶9

The petitioner has impleaded Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad/Ayodhya as opposite party no.1 in the petition whereas as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur; (1999) 2 SCC 577 and in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 , the Civil Court ought not to have been impleaded as an opposite party to the petition.

¶10

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to strike out the name of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad/Ayodhya as opposite party no.1 from the array of opposite party.

¶11

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad/Ayodhya for expeditious disposal of Suit No.318 of 2013.

¶12

The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction on 22.04.2013. Summons and notices were issued to the defendants and defendant no.1 has filed a written statement

¶13

on the suit on 23.05.2013. On 06.05.2013, the trial court recorded in its order that defendants no.3, 5 and 6 have been served with the summons of the suit. On 23.05.2013, the defendant no.1 has filed his written statement.

¶14

Although the suit is pending for more than a decade, even issues have not been framed till date.

¶15

In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of by giving a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad/Ayodhya to proceed with expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 KR

¶18

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

Ramawati v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramawati v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunder Lal Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) North, Unnao and 2 Others

Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Smt. Sheeba Usmani Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Court No. 20 Distt. Barabanki and 5 Others

Rakesh Gupta vs Smt. Shail Kumari Gupta

Ram Vishal Singh Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Shankar Sharma @ Shiv Shankar vs Rent Authority / Court of Addl. District Magistrate City(East), Lucknow and Another