Disposed¶10

Shalu Sharma v. Smt. Parmanandi Sharma

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2025A227/1151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; expeditious decision of 6-C2 application in Original Suit No.1365 of 2023 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar; time-bound direction of two months from production of certified copy; disposal at admission stage without counter affidavit or notice to private respondents; digital copy of writ petition treated as original owing to misplaced file (office report dated 11.02.2025); no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the 6-C2 application filed in Original Suit No.1365 of 2023 in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. ¶10

Shalu Sharma vs Smt. Parmanandi Sharma — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar should be directed to decide the 6-C2 application filed in Original Suit No.1365 of 2023. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondents, with a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the 6-C2 application filed in Original Suit No.1365 of 2023 in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In view of the office report dated 11.02.2025 recording that the original file of the writ petition has been misplaced, the digital copy of the writ petition is treated as the original; office is directed to trace out the original copy and replace the digital copy whenever it is traced out.

¶7

Key takeaways

The Court made it clear that it has not adjudicated the case on merit.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.) — Matters under Article 227 No. 1151 of 2025 (Order dated 13.2.2025). The petitioner sought a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the 6-C2 application filed in Original Suit No.1365 of 2023. As the original writ petition file was reported misplaced (office report dated 11.02.2025), the scanned/digital copy was treated as the original, with directions to office to substitute the original when traced. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending, the Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondents, directing the trial court to decide the 6-C2 application in accordance with law after hearing all affected parties, preferably within two months from production of a certified copy of the order. The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the case on merit.

Shalu Sharma v. Smt. Parmanandi Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalu Sharma v. Smt. Parmanandi Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nazim vs State of U.P.

Vijay Singh Chauhan vs Smt. Radha Devi

Badelal and 21 Others vs Gram Panchayat Thanapur,Pargana Sikandara, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj Throught Its Pradhan

M/S Krishna Gears Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Singh vs Jitendra Bahadur Singh and Another

Ramdavan Mall Deceased and 3 Others vs Shabeela Khatoon and 2 Others