Surya Prakash Verma and Another vs Mohd. Mukhtar — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Surya Prakash Verma and Another vs Mohd. Mukhtar — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions to the trial court to expedite Regular Suit No. 284 of 2005: maintain proper order sheets, change the Survey Commissioner if unresponsive, proceed with evidence irrespective of the survey inspection, fix weekly dates, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and impose heavy costs on any party misusing the liberty (per Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1).

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court should be directed to decide Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 2005 expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments, within a time frame fixed by the High Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court found it a fit case for expediting the proceedings of the suit.

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to ensure that appropriate order sheets are maintained reflecting what transpired on each date so fixed.

Key takeaways

If the Survey Commissioner has not responded, the court always has the power to change such Survey Commissioner, and his non-response cannot be a ground to delay the proceedings indefinitely.ratio¶17
Since the issues were framed in 2006, there can be no justification for not proceeding with the evidence irrespective of the inspection through the Survey Commissioner, which could have been resorted to simultaneously.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Jaspreet Singh, J. — Matters Under Article 227 No. 6840 of 2025, decided November 26, 2025. Petitioners, defendants in Regular Suit No. 284 of 2005 (Mohd. Mukhtar vs. Surya Prakash and another) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 39, District Barabanki, sought expeditious disposal of the suit. Though issues were framed on 27.10.2006, a Survey Commission appointed on the plaintiff's application was never executed and the plaintiff had yet to file examination-in-chief or other evidence. Without entering into the merits, the Court held it a fit case for expediting the proceedings and directed: (i) the trial court to maintain order sheets reflecting what transpired on each fixed date; (ii) that a non-responsive Survey Commissioner can always be changed and his inaction cannot delay the trial indefinitely; (iii) that with issues framed in 2006 there was no justification for not proceeding with evidence, the survey inspection being capable of resort to simultaneously; (iv) expedition with full opportunity of hearing but without unnecessary adjournments; (v) weekly fixing of dates; and (vi) imposition of heavy costs on any party misusing the liberty, considering Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1. Petition disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6840 of 2025

Surya Prakash Verma And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Mohd. Mukhtar .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Shukla, Arvind Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

By means of the present petition, the petitioners pray for the following relief which reads as under:

"(i) Issue the direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.39, District Barabanki to decide the pending Regular Civil Suit No.284 of 2005 titled as Mohd. Mukhtar vs. Surya Prakash and another, expeditiously and without giving any adjournments, in a given time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

The petitioners who are the defendants in Regular Suit no.284 of 2005 submits that after the exchange of pleadings, the issues were framed on 27.10.2006.

Upon an application moved by the plaintiff, a Survey Commission was appointed, however, since then, a large number of dates have been fixed but the survey commission has not been done and stereotyped order sheets are being written indicating non application of mind and in a way, the plaintiffs of the suit are being benefited.

The Court had also not applied its judicial mind to the fact that in case, if the survey was not being done, apparently, the order could have been recalled and a new Commissioner should have been appointed, however, no objection to this effect has been noticed by the trial court which has resulted in unnecessary delay of the trial and the suit of the year, 2005 is still at its nascent stage and though the issues were framed in 2006, the

A227 No. 6840 of 2025

2

plaintiff has yet not filed its examination in chief or other evidence.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, the submission appears to be correct, accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds that it is a fit case for expediting the proceedings and the trial court is also directed to ensure that appropriate orders sheet are brought reflecting what transpired on the date so fixed. If the Survey Commissioner has not responded, the Court always has the power to change such a Survey Commissioner and this cannot be a ground to delay the proceedings indefinitely. Since the issues have been framed in the year 2006, there can be no justification for not proceedings that the evidence irrespective of the inspection through Survey Commissioner which could have been resorted to simultaneously. The trial court take note that such methods which impact and hamper the trial should be deprecated and endeavour be made to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments. An attempt should be made to fix the date in the suit on weekly basis and, in case, if any party chooses to misuse the liberty, appropriate orders be passed imposing heavy costs considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

November 26, 2025 Harshita.

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