Disposed

Sushila v. Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court No. 8, Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024A227/4401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 highlighted unnecessary delays in a Panchayat Revision. The court directed the striking out of the Civil Court as an opposite party and ordered expeditious disposal of the impugned revision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to strike out the name of the First Additional District Judge as an opposite party and direct the Revisional Court to dispose of Panchayat Revision No. 9 of 2023 expeditiously without unnece

Sushila vs Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63519

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4401 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sushila

¶5

Respondent :- Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court No. 8, Distt. Sultanpur And Another

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Tripathi

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

The petitioner has impleaded the learned First Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in the array of opposite parties, whereas as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge , Gorakhpur; (1999) 2 SCC 577 and in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat , (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Civil Courts ought not to be impleaded as opposite parties to the petitions filed in the High Courts.

¶10

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to strike out the name of learned First Additional District Judge, Sultanpur from the array of opposite parties and renumber the opposite parties forthwith.

¶11

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to the learned First Additional District Judge, Sultanpur for expeditious disposal of Panchayat Revision No.9 of 2023 under Section 12-C (6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the aforesaid revision on 21.07.2023, on which date the revision was admitted. It is recorded in the order dated 12.09.2023 that both the parties were present on 26.10.2023, the Revisional Court passed an order holding service of notice to be sufficient. Yet, the revision has repetitively been adjourned - on several occasions because of

¶13

strike of Advocates but on some occasions without assigning any reason.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the learned First Additional District Judge, Sultanpur to decide the aforesaid Panchayat Revision No.9 of 2023 under Section 12-C (6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶15

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 13.9.2024

¶17

-Amit K-

¶18

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

Sushila v. Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court No. 8, Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila v. Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court No. 8, Distt. Sultanpur and Another

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

Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. and Another

Man Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Rahmanul HUDA and 3 Others Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balrampur and 4 Others

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai and 4 Others vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) West,Hardoi and 7 Others

Anil Kumar and 2 Others vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 25,SULTANPUR and 3 Others

Rakesh vs the Permanent Lok Adalat , Lko. and Another