Shree Prakash Jaiswal v. Sri Vijay Prakash and 17 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Pending second appeal adjourned on office report that service of notice on thirteen respondents was insufficient. One week granted for fresh service steps; case listed for 15.07.2026 with interim orders, if any, continuing till next date.
What did the court decide?
One week's time granted to appellant to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents; interim orders, if any, to continue till next date of listing.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
SECOND APPEAL No. - 99 of 2025
Shree Prakash Jaiswal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Vijay Prakash And 17 Others
.....Respondent(s)
| Counsel for Appellant(s) | : Ashish Chaturvedi, Shreya Prakash |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : Salik Ram, Abhishek Singh, Anubhav Prakash, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Sachindra Dwivedi |
Court No. - 20
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
- As per office report, service of notice upon respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 is not sufficient.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shree Prakash Jaiswal
- respondent
Sri Vijay Prakash And 17 Others
Coram
Prashant Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/99/2025
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mustak Ali and 3 Others vs Chairman Nagar Panchayat Ikauna, Pargana, Tehsil Kasba Ikauna, Shrawasti and 3 Others
Ankita Verma vs Sanjay Kumar
Rajkumar and Others vs Gram Sabha Saidhari, Lakhimpur Kheri Thru. Pradhan /Chairman and Another
Ram Naresh Shukla vs United of India Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Its Manager and Another