Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35969

Court No. - 2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3824 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kumar Kashyap,Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Judge, Small Causes Court No.32, Lucknow to decide S.C.C. Suit No.350 of 2017 expeditiously.

¶8

3. In paragraph No.3 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded that she is suffering a lot of problems, she mostly remain sick and the matter is urgent and, therefore, the petition is being filed during the ongoing summer vacations.

¶9

4. When the Court put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how pendency of a matter since the year 2017 becomes urgent suddenly during the ongoing summer vacations and why could this petition not wait till July, 2025,

¶10

he submitted that the same petitioner had filed another petition under Article 227 No.3833 of 2025 and on 17.06.2025, this Court has disposed of that petition by issuing a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit and that suit was also filed in the year 2017.

¶11

5. In paragraph No.3 of the order dated 17.06.2025, this Court had observed that a copy of the order sheet of the suit annexed with the petition indicates that the Court remained vacant since 07.09.2019 till 18.11.2022, and the petitioner did not take any steps to get the suit transferred to some other Court during this period of more than three years. Even thereafter, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has filed any application before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶12

6. This Court had also observed that the petitioner had failed to make out any ground for issuance of a direction to the trial court for giving precedents of the suit over further pending matters. However, considering that the suit is quite old, this Court had observed that the learned Judge, Small Causes Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law expeditiously. Although, this direction was passed on 17.06.2025, the Court is experiencing that while some Benches are sitting for dealing with matters involving extreme urgency, the Advocates are misusing the Benches sitting for dealing with extreme urgent matters by filing

¶13

frivolous petitions, wherein no urgency is involved. Moreover, taking a lenient view in one matter leads to a series of similar petitions being filed before this Court like in the present case. It is these frivolous matters, due to which, the Court does not have time left for dealing with matters, wherein genuine urgency is involved like threat of dispossession and demolition etc.

¶14

7. As no extreme urgency is involved in the petition, this Court declines to entertain this petition during the ongoing summer vacations.

¶15

8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

9. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh petition when the Court resumes normal working.

¶17

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 20.6.2025 cks/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jay Singh and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Lucknow and 13 Others

Umakant and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Harelal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and 3 Others

Ram Dulari and 2 Others vs Vishram and 3 Others

Smt. Kalawati vs Suman Verma and 4 Others

Smt. Kalawati Vs Suman Verma and 4 Others