Disposed¶19

Surendra Kumar v. Sitaram and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2026A227/2205/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition of trial; Article 227 writ; delay in civil suit; permanent injunction; interim injunction Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Civil Judge Sultanpur; ex parte proceedings; recall application; progressive costs for adjournment abuse; Revajeetu Builders (2009) 10 SCC 84; Vinod Seth (2010) 8 SCC 1; suit of 2016 to be concluded expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge, Sultanpur to expedite Civil Suit No. 62 of 2016, accord it adequate priority, prevent abuse of process by any party, decide the suit strictly in accordance with law without unnecessary adjournments, with liberty to impose progressive costs on any party misusing the liberty as per the cited Apex Court decisions. ¶19

Surendra Kumar vs Sitaram and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in an Article 227 petition, should direct the trial court to expeditiously dispose of Civil Suit No. 62 of 2016 pending before the Civil Judge, Sultanpur, where the suit is alleged to be delayed at the behest of the defendants despite an interim injunction, framing of issues, and ex parte evidence having been completed.

¶11

Court's answer

On the facts stated and the extract of the order sheets brought on record, the matter is apparently being delayed at the behest of the defendants of the suit.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and ensure that none of the parties are permitted to abuse the process of law; the suit of the year 2016 shall be accorded adequate priority so that it is taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court has not examined the case of either party on merit; the suit shall be decided strictly in accordance with law without unnecessary adjournments, and if any party misuses the liberty the Court may enforce progressive costs in light of the Apex Court decisions in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayan Swamy and sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another (2010) 8 SCC 1.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 (Matters Under Article 227 No. 2205 of 2026), Allahabad High Court (Lucknow), decided 27 April 2026 by Jaspreet Singh, J.: Petitioner Surendra Kumar sought expeditious disposal of Civil Suit No. 62 of 2016 (permanent injunction) pending before the Civil Judge, Sultanpur, where an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC subsisted, written statement was filed on 18.03.2016, issues framed on 25.04.2016, and the suit had proceeded ex parte amid alleged delay by the defendants, who later sought recall. From the order-sheet extracts the Court found the delay attributable to the defendants, directed expedition and priority for the 2016 suit, forbade abuse of process, expressly left the merits unexamined, and cautioned that progressive costs may be imposed on any party misusing the liberty, relying on Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayan Swamy and sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another (2010) 8 SCC 1. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2205 of 2026

¶3

Surendra Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sitaram And 4 Others	.....Respon
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anand Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Civil Suit No.62 of 2016 pending before the Civil Judge, Sultanpur.

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner wherein on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner was granted an interim injunction order which continued to subsists.

¶13

It is further stated that the written statement was filed on 18.03.2016 and in furtherance thereof the issues were also framed on 25.04.2016. Thereafter the matter remained pending and it was being delayed at the behest of the defendants of the suit which ultimately proceeded ex parte . The petitioner filed his ex parte evidence where after again in order to delay the proceedings, the defendants have moved an application for recall and in view thereof, unless some expedite orders are passed, the matter will remain pending.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as from the perusal of the extract of the order sheets which have been brought on record as annexure no.5 apparently the matter is being delayed at the behest of the defendants.

¶15

A227 No. 2205 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Be that as it may, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and ensure that none of the parties are permitted to abuse the process of law. The suit of the year 2016 may be accorded adequate priority so that it can be taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment. In case if any parties tries to misuse the liberty, the Court will be well within its rights to enforce progressive costs in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayan Swamy and sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another (2010) 8 SCC 1.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶21

April 27, 2026

¶22

ank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar v. Sitaram and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. Sitaram and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muneer Uddin Khan vs District Magistrate (Arbitrator Nhai) Lucknow

Ram Chhabiley Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Bahraich and 3 Others

Gulfam Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Servesh Kumar Sahu vs Patiraji

Omkar Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Km. Rehana vs Mujeeb Ahmad and 8 Others