Dismissed¶¶13

Smt. Parmaa Devi v. District Judge Barabanki

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2025WRIC/1004695/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition dismissed; petition loses efficacy; entertainability after ex parte decree in underlying suit R.S. No. 660 of 2003 dated 18.01.2013; restoration application pending; trial court order dated 05.05.2008 rejecting application affirmed by revisional court as interlocutory; Additional Civil Judge/(Junior Division) Court No. 21 Barabanki; private respondent counter affidavit dated 24.04.2025; liberty to pursue remedies if suit restored; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed with liberty that, if the suit is restored and any substance survives, the petitioner may take appropriate measures as may be permissible in law. ¶¶13

Smt. Parmaa Devi Vs District Judge Barabanki — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1004695 of 2008

Smt. Parmaa Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

District Judge Barabanki .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nisha Srivastav, Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Suresh Sharma

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/ (Junior Division) Court no.21, Barabanki rejecting the application of the petitioner and the said order has been affirmed by the revisional court holding that the order impugned passed by the trial court was interlocutory in nature. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. The record indicates that there is no interim order. The record further indicates that a counter affidavit was filed by the private respondent on 24.04.2025 and along with a certified copy of an exparte judgement and decree dated 18.01.2013 has been placed on record.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid fact which is not disputed is that the suit bearing R.S no.660 of 2003 came to be decreed exparte on 18.01.2013. It is also not disputed that the said exparte judgment has yet not been set aside and still continues to subsist though it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that an application for restoration is pending.

¶12

Be that as it may, once the suit stands decreed and the petitioner has already availed remedy, hence, as far as this petition is concerned, it cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the suit stands dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

¶13

The instant petition also looses its efficacy and is accordingly, dismissed. However, in case, if the suit is restored and any substance survives, it will

¶14

WRIC No. 1004695 of 2008

¶15

¶16

be open for the petitioner to take appropriate measure as may be permissible in law.

¶17

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶18

November 11, 2025

¶19

Harshita

¶20