Petitioner challenged mutation proceedings via writ petition. Respondent objected maintainability. Court adjourned to allow petitioner time to respond to maintainability objection.
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.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22126 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Prasad And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Ojha,Ram Mani Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Counsel for the State-respondents has pointed out that the writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and accordingly the same would not be entertainable.
Sri Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to respond to the aforesaid objection.
As prayed, list on 18.09.2024 as fresh.
Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Radhika
[Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]
Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Ram Prasad And 4 Others
State Of Up And 7 Others
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
