Disposed¶12

Parasnath Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2026WRIC/43687/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parasnath Gupta v. State of U.P., WRIT - C No. 43687 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, decided March 25, 2026, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery J. — recall of ex-parte order dated 15.4.2013 (publication case); recall application allowed 2.6.2014; revision rejected 12.9.2025; Section 34 L.R. Act application pending before respondent authority; writ discretion declined; petition disposed of with liberty to file submissions; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit all legal submissions before the concerned respondent deciding the Section 34 L.R. Act application, for expeditious decision in accordance with law. ¶12

Parasnath Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction against the order dated 2.6.2014 allowing recall of the ex-parte proceedings and the order dated 12.9.2025 rejecting the petitioner's revision.

¶9

Court's answer

The petitioner's argument that he is highly prejudiced by the impugned order is not sustainable, since he is at liberty to place his case before the concerned respondent, who will decide the application under Section 34 of the L.R. Act expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since the ex-parte order dated 15.4.2013, passed on the basis of publication, has been recalled, the Court found no reason to exercise its discretion in writ jurisdiction.

¶11

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is still at liberty to submit all his legal submissions so that the matter is decided expeditiously.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - C No. 43687 of 2025) challenging the order dated 2.6.2014 allowing a contesting respondent's Recall Application — thereby recalling the ex-parte order dated 15.4.2013 passed on the basis of publication — and the order dated 12.9.2025 rejecting the petitioner's revision. Held: (i) the plea of prejudice was unsustainable as the petitioner remained free to place his case before the concerned respondent deciding the application under Section 34 of the L.R. Act expeditiously and in accordance with law; (ii) once the ex-parte order had been recalled, there was no reason to exercise discretion in writ jurisdiction. Petition disposed of with liberty to submit all legal submissions for expeditious decision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 43687 of 2025

¶3

Parasnath Gupta And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Puran Nath Shukla, Sarita Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Puran Nath Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

Order dated 2.6.2014 is an order whereby Recall Application filed on behalf of contesting respondent was allowed and revision thereof filed by petitioner was rejected vide an order dated 12.9.2025.

¶10

An argument of learned counsel for petitioner that he is highly prejudiced by impugned order is not sustainable since he is at liberty to place is case before concern respondent who will decide the application filed under Section 34 of L.R. Act expeditiously strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

It is not disputed that on basis of publication, proceedings were conducted ex-parte vide an order dated 15.4.2013 which has been recalled, therefore, Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in writ jurisdiction.

¶12

Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner is still at liberty to submit all his legal submissions so that matter be decided expeditiously.

¶13

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶14

March 25, 2026

¶15

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parasnath Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasnath Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

The Committee of Management Bundelkhand College Society, Jhansi and Another vs the State of U.P. and Another

Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Maurya vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow

Jai Narayan Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Parasnath Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sudhir Singh Tomar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others