Dismissed

Dr.Jagdish Singh v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C.Act and 7 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025A227/755/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging proceedings against the petitioner who was not arrayed as a defendant in a suit where no relief regarding title was sought. The court clarified that the petitioner remains free to protect his title through appropriate legal steps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

Dr.Jagdish Singh Vs Additional District Judge/Special… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40987

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 755 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr.Jagdish Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C.Act And 7 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Srivastava,Brijesh Kumar Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Hasan,M.Naseerullah,Manoj Kumar Singh,N.A.Siddiqui,R.A.Khan,Rakesh Kr. Tripathi

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

Order on I.A. No.26 of 2025:

¶9

1. The application seeks recall of the order dated 05.04.2025.

¶10

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

¶11

3. Order dated 05.04.2025 is recalled.

¶12

4. The application is accordingly allowed.

¶13

5. Petition is being heard afresh.

¶14

Order on Writ Petition:

¶15

6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties had filed a suit in which certain factually incorrect averments were made with regard to the title of the petitioner over the property in question.

¶16

7. A copy of the plaint was shown across the Bar in which, the essential relief claimed by the plaintiff was that the respondent should not interfere in the conduct of his business and should not evict them except in accordance with law.

¶17

8. No relief with regard to title or otherwise was sought by the plaintiff; the petitioner was not arrayed as defendant to the suit.

¶18

9. Considering the nature of the prayer, no reliefs were sought against the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

¶19

10. In view thereof, no interference is called for.

¶20

11. It is clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to take such steps as may be available under law to protect his title and averments made by the plaintiff in the suit in question will never come in way of deciding whatever the rights are claimed

¶21

by the present petition.

¶22

12. Present petition is dismissed with the observation as made herein above.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 nishant

¶24

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

Dr.Jagdish Singh v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C.Act and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Jagdish Singh v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C.Act and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs Molai and Ors.

Akbar Ali Vs Addl. Dist. Judge Vth Gonda and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs Distt. Judge Pratapgarh and Ors.

Akhilesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Sonu Mishra @ Ram Hajari Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Surya Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 6 Others