Writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of a pending revision case. The Court allowed an impleadment application, dispensed with notice on the private respondent and directed the authority to decide the revision promptly without unnecessary adjournments.
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:82904
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5692 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Order on Impleadment Application
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an impleadment application indicating that inadvertently, he did not implead the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya, MandalAyodhya as a party. He seeks liberty by moving the application to implead the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya, Mandal- Ayodhya as respondent No.3.
Having considered the aforesaid application, this Court is of the view that it is formal in nature and there is no legal impediment in allowing the same.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the necessary correction in the array of the parties during the course of the day.
Order on Petition
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of respondent No.2 has been accepted by Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Revision No.2911 of 2023 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Kiran and others) Computerized Case No.C202304000002911 pending before the respondent No.3.
Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner
will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.3 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Revision No.2911 of 2023 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Kiran and others) Computerized Case No.C-202304000002911 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Ashutosh
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya should be impleaded as respondent No. 3.
Whether the pending Revision No. 2911 of 2023 should be directed to be decided expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kiran
Rajendra Kumar
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
