Dismissed

Hadeeshul Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024WRIC/6617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order in a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding a preliminary issue. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy, relying on Radha Krishna Industries. The merits of the plea were not examined as the petition was dismissed solely on maintainability grounds.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed solely on the ground of statutory remedy available to the petitioner; merits not examined.

Hadeeshul Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52917

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6617 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Hadeeshul Nisha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the Office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 10.06.2024, whereby in a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 respondent No.3 has decided a preliminary issue No.2 as framed, against the petitioner.

¶8

A pin pointed query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether against the impugned order, he has an alternate remedy, he submits that though he has a remedy but the issue of maintainability, which is involved, can be better appreciated by this Court in writ jurisdiction. He submits that the suit of the private respondent is barred in terms of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶9

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact of the availability of statutory remedy.

¶10

In light of the decision of the Apex Court in Radha Krishna Industries Vs. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771 , this Court is not inclined to entertained the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of law as may be available to him and in case, if the same is done, the same shall be considered by the authority.

¶11

It is made clear that this court has declined to entertain the petition solely on the ground of statutory remedy as available to the petitioner and has not examined the merits of the plea of the petitioner.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Ashutosh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hadeeshul Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadeeshul Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Premlata Vs Addil. Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Ram Bux and Another Vs Learned Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Lucknow and Others

Rakesh Kumar vs Up Zila Adhikari, Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Shyam Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

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