Disposed

Ram Shanker Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024A227/587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the need to keep the petition pending due to the limited prayer. Instead, the court issued a direction to the lower adjudicating authority to decide a pending application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC expeditiously within three months after providing a full hearing opportunity to parties. The court clarified that it did no

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent court to decide the pending application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as expeditiously as possible within three months, after affording a full opportunity of hearing to the p

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14015

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 587 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Shanker Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, who at the outset submits that he may be permitted to press the instant petition only for expeditious disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed along with the Regular Suit bearing No.236 of 2021 (Ram Shankar versus Ajay Singh and others), pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad/Ayodhya. He submits that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is pending since 2021 and despite repeated dates having been fixed, the same has yet not been decided nor the defendants have filed their objections to the aforesaid.

¶7

Considering the limited prayer, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending. Accordingly, the notice to private respondents no.2 and 4 is dispensed with and the petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned seized of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in Regular suit No.236 of 2021 to consider and decide the said application as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the court concerned.

¶8

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the court concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶9

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶10

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 KR

¶11

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

Ram Shanker Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shanker Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 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

Smt. Subhadra Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Gyanendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Krishna Kumar vs Addil. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Rajendra Kumar vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and 9 Others

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Saurabh Rajvansh and Another vs Civil Judge Hawali Junior Division Lko. and 4 Others