Ramesh Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Ramesh Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh to proceed with Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 expeditiously, in accordance with law, and to decide the temporary injunction application after ascertaining whether the defendants are served with summons; if the defendants are served and no written statement has been filed, to proceed keeping in view Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh should be directed to decide the temporary injunction application in Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 expeditiously. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the suit and the temporary injunction application have been pending since 2021, the petition is disposed of by directing the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh to proceed with Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 expeditiously, in accordance with law, and to decide the temporary injunction application after ascertaining whether the defendants are served with summons.

Ratio / Principle

In case the defendants have been served with summons and have not filed any written statement, the trial Court will proceed keeping in view the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

Key takeaways

The order-sheet annexed with the petition does not reveal whether the petitioners took steps for service of summons/notices on the defendant or whether the summons/notices were served.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 17, Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) disposed of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 839 of 2026, decided February 26, 2026) filed by Ramesh Pandey and another seeking a direction to the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh to decide the temporary injunction application in Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 (filed 06.09.2021) expeditiously. The learned Standing Counsel raised preliminary objections that the State of U.P. (opposite party Nos.1 and 2) was neither a necessary nor a proper party, and that impleading the trial Court as an opposite party is deprecated in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1992) 2 SCC 577 and clarified in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1; counsel for the petitioners conceded misjoinder of parties and did not press the petition against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Noting that the suit and injunction application had been pending since 2021, that proceedings had been repetitively adjourned, and that the order-sheet did not disclose steps taken for or completion of service of summons, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with law, to decide the temporary injunction application after ascertaining service of the defendants, and, where the defendants stand served but have filed no written statement, to proceed keeping in view Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 839 of 2026

Ramesh Pandey And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 17

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Heard Shri Harsh Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh to decide the temporary injunction application filed in Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 expeditiously.

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have filed the aforesaid suit against the opposite party No.3. The State of U.P. is not a party to the suit and, therefore, it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this petition. The second objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel is against impleadment of the trial Court as an opposite party as this practice is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur , (1992) 2 SCC 577 and it has been clarified in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat , (2015) 9 SCC 1 that the trial Court ought not have been impleaded as a party to the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel and he admits that the petition suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties. However, he submits that he is not pressing the petition against opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

A227 No. 839 of 2026

2

A perusal of the order-sheet annexed with the petition indicates that the suit was filed on 06.09.2021, on which date, notices were issued to the defendants. Thereafter, the proceedings of the suit have repetitively been adjourned for one reason or the other and at times the proceedings have been adjourned without assigning any reason. The order-sheet does not reveal as to whether the petitioners have taken steps for service of summons/notices on the defendant or not and whether the summons/notices have been served or not.

However, as the suit and the application for temporary injunctions is pending consideration since the year 2021, the present petition is disposed off by issuing a direction to learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh to proceed with Regular Suit No.1719 of 2021 expeditiously, in accordance with law, and to decide the temporary injunction application after ascertaining whether the defendants are served with summons and in case the defendants have been served with the summons and yet he has not filed any written statement, the trial Court will proceed keeping in view the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

February 26, 2026 -Amit K-

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

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