Disposed¶17

Sharda Baksh Singh v. Harsh Sharma and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026A227/7308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; expeditious disposal of civil suit; direction to trial court; six-month outer limit; eviction suit; Civil Judge (SD)/F.T.C. Lucknow; delay in disposal; suit ripe for hearing; Sharda Baksh Singh v. Harsh Sharma; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Lucknow to decide pending Civil Suit No. 93/2019 expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, within a maximum period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. ¶17

Sharda Baksh Singh vs Harsh Sharma and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7308 of 2025

Sharda Baksh Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Harsh Sharma And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶10

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

"a. Issue order or direction to the Civil Judge (S.D), F.T.C., Lucknow to decide the Civil Suit No. 93 of 2019, titled as Sharda Baksh Singh Versus Harsh Sharma and another, pending before the Civil Judge (SD)/F.T.C., Lucknow within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein filed a Civil Suit seeking eviction of the opposite parties in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Hawali, Lucknow on 09.01.2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the written statement was filed b y the respondent/defendants on 26.08.2021, thereafter issues are framed and the evidence has already been completed. It is very emphatically argued on behalf of the petitioner that despite the case is ripe for hearing but on one or the other reason, the hearing could not have taken place causing unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has a strong case on merit but due to unnecessary delay, he is deprived of his bonafide claim.

¶14

Be that as it may, taking into consideration the submissions advanced by

¶15

A227 No. 7308 of 2025

¶16

¶17

the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this petition pending. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Lucknow to decide the pending Civil Suit No. 93/2019 expeditiously strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties within maximum period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶18

January 13, 2026 Arun

¶19

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶20

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

Sharda Baksh Singh v. Harsh Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Baksh Singh v. Harsh Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Sudha Jain and Another vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Sansthan Lko. and Another

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Patel Advance Jv Thru. Authorized Representative Rajneesh Kumar vs Shri Arvind Mehta