Disposed¶22

Ram Piyarey v. a D J Sultanpur

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2025WRIC/1003550/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C 1003550 of 2009; Ram Piyarey v. A D J Sultanpur; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; order dated 11.8.2025; interlocutory order; no interference; amendment of pleadings; revision against amendment allowed; recall application rejected; liberty to raise additional grounds in appeal; expeditious trial direction; suit to be decided within one year; delay condonation; substitution of legal heirs of deceased petitioners; order dated 17.01.2023 recalled.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no interference in the impugned interlocutory orders; liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise additional grounds in appeal after the suit is decided; trial court directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year; Senior Registrar to send a copy of the order to the trial court for compliance.

Ram Piyarey Vs a D J Sultanpur — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether interference is warranted with the impugned interlocutory orders dated 30.07.2007 (allowing the revision against the amendment order) and 18.05.2009 (rejecting recall of that order).

¶20

Court's answer

The impugned orders are interlocutory in nature and no interference is called for with them.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

After the suit is decided, the petitioners, if still aggrieved, would be entitled to raise additional grounds while preferring an appeal.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the suit is very old, the trial court is directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within one year.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 1003550 of 2009, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Pankaj Bhatia, J.) challenging (i) the revisional court's order dated 30.07.2007 allowing the opposite party's revision against an order permitting amendment of pleadings, and (ii) the order dated 18.05.2009 rejecting recall of that order. Held: the impugned orders being interlocutory in nature, no interference was called for; the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise additional grounds in appeal after the suit is decided. The trial court was directed to decide the old suit expeditiously, preferably within one year, and the Senior Registrar was directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court. Ancillary orders: delay condoned and order dated 17.01.2023 recalled (I.A. Nos.6 and 7 of 2023); delay condoned and substitution of legal heirs of deceased petitioner Nos.1 and 2 allowed (C.M.A. Nos.126735 and 126736 of 2014).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46866

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003550 of 2009

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Piyarey Respondent :- A D J Sultanpur Counsel for Petitioner :- H S Tiwari,Hari Shanker Tewari,Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Shanker Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

I.A. Nos.6 and 7 of 2023

¶7

The application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 17.01.2023 along with delay condonation application.

¶8

The cause shown is sufficient.

¶9

The delay in filing the recall application is condoned.

¶10

The order dated 17.01.2023 is recalled.

¶11

C.M.A. Nos.126735 and 126736 of 2014

¶12

The delay condonation application has been filed in support of substitution application stating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 died leaving behind the legal heirs, which are proposed to be brought on record.

¶13

The delay in filing the substitution application is allowed.

¶14

The delay is condoned.

¶15

Substitution of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is allowed.

¶16

Order on Writ Petition

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th July, 2007, whereby the revision preferred by the opposite party against an order allowing the amendment came to be allowed as well as the order dated 18.05.2009, whereby an application for recalling the order was also rejected.

¶19

The revisional court in its order considered the facts and recorded that despite notice, no one was present. In the application filed for recall of the said order, no facts as are being argued here was pleaded.

¶20

Considering the fact that the orders impugned are interlocutory in nature, no interference is called for.

¶21

However, it is provided that after the suit is decided, the petitioners if still aggrieved would be entitled to raise additional ground while preferring an appeal.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶23

As the suit is very old, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶24

The Senior Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court for compliance.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ashutosh

¶26

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

Ram Piyarey v. a D J Sultanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Piyarey v. a D J Sultanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hari Bhawan Singh Vs Ditrict Magistrate Pratapgarh District Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Smt. Aneeta Gupta Vs Court of Learned District and Session Judge, Lko. and 2 Others

Sanjay Vs Additional District Judge,Court NO.3, Gonda and Others

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others vs U.P. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Mukeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satish Chandra Sharma @ Satish Kumar Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Another