Disposed¶9

Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey v. Kushlawati and 9 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2025A227/3002/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition, Allahabad High Court 2025; expedited/time-bound disposal of pending application 97-C2; Order 16 Rule 10(2 & 3) CPC application for summons to witness; scribe (scriber) of Will dated 08.01.1985; authenticity of Will; Suit No. 11 of 2022, Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs. Kushlawati Devi; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti; direction to decide within three months; disposal at admission stage without counter affidavit or notice; express clarification of no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti to decide the application (97-C2) in Suit No. 11 of 2022 (Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs. Kushlawati Devi) in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. ¶9

Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs Kushlawati and 9 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should direct the Civil Judge (J.D.), Basti to decide the pending application (Paper No. 97C2) under Order 16 Rule 10(2 & 3) CPC — by which the petitioner sought summons to Pateshwari Prasad, scribe of the Will dated 08.01.1985 — within a fixed time frame.

¶8

Court's answer

The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti is directed to decide the application (97-C2) filed in Suit No. 11 of 2022 (Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs. Kushlawati Devi) in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondents.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it has not adjudicated the case on merit; the order is confined to a time-bound direction on the pending application.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.) disposed of, at the admission stage and without calling for a counter affidavit or notice to the private respondents, a petition under Article 227 in which the sole prayer, as clarified by counsel, was a time-bound decision on Application (Paper No. 97C2) under Order 16 Rule 10(2 & 3) CPC in Original Suit No. 11 of 2022 (Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey vs. Kushlawati Devi) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Basti — the application seeking summons to Pateshwari Prasad, scribe of a Will dated 08.01.1985, to ascertain its authenticity. The trial court was directed to decide the application in accordance with law after hearing all affected parties, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court made clear that it had not adjudicated the matter on merits.

Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey v. Kushlawati and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikrishna Kumar Pandey v. Kushlawati and 9 Others

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

Shri Rajendra Kumar Kapoor vs Kanpur Development Authority

Indra Bahadur vs Pramila Devi and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar and Another vs Ramashankar

Rajaram vs Smt. Shashiprabha Kushwaha and 2 Others

Raghuvir vs Kishan Singh and 3 Others

Rajesh Raphial and Another vs Nitin Vimal Raphial and 2 Others