6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that no case for expeditious disposal of the pending proceeding was made out. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.
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:108660
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17790 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sarita Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Ram Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to conclude the case No. 1628 of 2016 (Computerized case No. T20160203081628) (Raj Kumari Vs. Phool Chandra) under section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in terms of decision outcome in original suit No. 444 of 2016 (Sarita Devi Vs. Satyanarayan and another), pending before Civil Judge (J.D.), Allahabad."
Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vandana Y.
Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ in mandamus should be issued to compel the respondent to conclude a pending revenue proceeding in terms of a civil suit judgment.
Sarita Devi And 2 Others
State Of Up And 4 Others
Chandra Kumar Rai
Vandana Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
