Disposed

Rekha v. Smt. Munifa and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025A227/1035/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in a pending specific performance suit sought a direction for expeditious disposal and a decision on her interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The first prayer was not pressed; the High Court directed the trial court to decide the injunction application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to decide Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Rekha vs Smt. Munifa and 4 Others — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15677

¶2

Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1035 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rekha Respondent :- Smt. Munifa And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Pundir Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶4

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Muzaffar Nagar on 07.12.2023 bearing Suit No. 851 of 2023 (Rekha Vs. Smt. Munifa & others) and in the suit proceedings, the defendants have put in appearance but have not filed written statement despite repeated opportunities having been granted.

¶5

In the aforesaid circumstances, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction tot the trial court to decide the suit proceedings expeditiously and also for a direction to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC expeditiously.

¶6

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not want to press the prayer No. 1 for expeditious disposal of the suit but he submits that the grievances of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed ion case trial court is directed to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC expeditiously.

¶7

Considering the fact that defendants have put in appearance we see no reason as to why the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC should have remained pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Muzaffar Nagar to consider and decide the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶8

In case it is not possible to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, as directed hereinabove, the court should consider grant ad interim injunction in case, a case is made out for grant of the same in accordance with law.

¶9

The petitioner undertakes to cooperates in the proceedings before the trial court.

¶10

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 4.2.2025/Ravi/-

¶12

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rekha v. Smt. Munifa and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha v. Smt. Munifa and 4 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

Similar cases

Heera Lal Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko and 5 Others

Neeraj Kumar and 24 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahaveer Singh and Another vs Tejpal and Another

Ramchandra Dead and 4 Others vs Nand Kishore Dead and 21 Others

Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another