Dismissed

Onkar Nath Singh and 3 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024WRIC/18746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 praying for impleadment in long-pending revisions. Court directed respondent Additional Commissioner to decide impleadment application expeditiously within three months without adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide impleadment application within three months without adjournment unless legal impediment exists.

Onkar Nath Singh and 3 Others vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168737

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18746 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶7

"a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the impleadment application of petitioners in pending Revision No. 03 of 2013, Revision No. 131 of 2013 (Shivprakash Vs. Sanjay and Others) pending before the respondent no. 2.

¶8

b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to direct the respondent no. 2 to expedite the entire proceeding of revision no. 03 of 2013 and revision no. 131 of 2013 if possible within a period of one month, pending before him."

¶9

In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the opposite party to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the opposite party feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.

¶10

The basic relief sought by the petitioners in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to direct the court below to decide impleadment application of the petitioners filed in pending Revision No. 131 of 2013 (Shivprakash Vs. Sanjay and Others) expeditiously.

¶11

The matter is pending before the Court below since 2013 and considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 2-Additional Commissioneer (Judicial-II), Varanasi Region Varanasi, to decide the aforesaid impleadment application strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court without granting unnecessary adjournment unless there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 VS

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Onkar Nath Singh and 3 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Nath Singh and 3 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Meenu Gautam vs State of Up and 4 Others

Smt Anjana Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Anjali Srivastava vs State of Up and 5 Others

Smt Sony vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Farhanaaz vs State of Up and 2 Others

Isteyak Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others