# Shatrughan Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 491
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 3726 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shatrughan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49613
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Section 49-matter of Survey bondobast
pending-time extension application-due to
the ripe of the crop of sugarcane, over the
land in dispute, the survey proceeding
stopped for some period of time-the
application
for
extension
of
time
prescribed in a decided writ petition is
maintainable provided the reasons are
properly explained, subject to condition
that the same would not change the
nature of the final judgment and orderthe extension of time is not amount to
reviving the proceeding for subsequent
events-In fact the court provides the
time
for
concluding
any
proceeding
either there is any provision of any
statute which provides the time period or
the probable time for concluding any
proceeding to the discretion of the Court,
if no such time prescribed by the statue.
(Para 1 to 26)
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
491

12.6- The Apex Court in case of
Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh &
Ors, (2013) 9 SCC 245, has held as under:-

"It may be so necessary to curb
the menace of criminal prosecution as an
instrument
of
operation
of
needless
harassment. A person cannot be permitted
to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in
the inherent power of the court and the
whole idea is to do real, complete and
substantial justice for which the courts
exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty
of the court to protect an apparently
innocent person, not to be subjected to
prosecution on the basis of wholly
untenable complaint."

13- On the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the view that the criminal
proceedings against the applicants initiated
by opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a
malicious prosecution with an ulterior
motive, which is clear abuse of process of
the Court. Impugned summoning order
dated 21.04.2022 of this case is not
sustainable. This Court under the facts and
circumstances of this case, feels that it is
the solemn duty of the Court to protect
apparently an innocent person, not to be
subjected to such frivolous prosecution on
the basis of wholly untenable allegations
and complaint, if criminal proceeding is
allowed to go on, the same will tantamount
to causing grave miscarriage of justice,
therefore in order to secure the ends of
justice, the impugned criminal proceeding
against the applicants is liable to be
quashed.

14- As a fallout and consequence of
aforesaid discussion, impugned summoning
order
dated
21.04.2022
and
further
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2513
of 2021 (Satyam Singh vs. Smriti Singh)
against the applicants are hereby quashed.

15-
Accordingly,
the
present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 491
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 3726 of 2022

Shatrughan Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Singh, Om Nath Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Section 49-matter of Survey bondobast
pending-time extension application-due to
the ripe of the crop of sugarcane, over the
land in dispute, the survey proceeding
stopped for some period of time-the
application
for
extension
of
time
prescribed in a decided writ petition is
maintainable provided the reasons are
properly explained, subject to condition
that the same would not change the
nature of the final judgment and orderthe extension of time is not amount to
reviving the proceeding for subsequent
events-In fact the court provides the
time
for
concluding
any
proceeding
either there is any provision of any
statute which provides the time period or
the probable time for concluding any
proceeding to the discretion of the Court,
if no such time prescribed by the statue.
(Para 1 to 26)
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs New India
Assr. Co. (2013) SCC Online Alld.

2. K.A. Ansari Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. (2009) 2
SCC 164

3. St. of U.P. Vs Brahma Dutt Sharma (1987) 2
SCC 179

4. Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs U.O.I. (2012) 4
SCC 568

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

(Application for Extension of Time -
IA/2/2023)

1. Heard Shri Onkar Nath Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief
Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Praful
Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, Shri Hemant Pandey,
learned
Standing
Counsel
and
Shri
Dhirendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel
for the State/Applicant.

2. The deponent/State by way of
instituting an application dated 21.11.2023
sought prayer for extension of time, as
provided in the judgment and order dated
27.09.2022.

3. While filing writ petition Matters
Under Article 227 No.3726 of 2022
(Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
Others) the petitioner, namely, Shatrughan
Yadav sought prayer for issuance of a
direction to respondent/ opposite party
nos.2 and 3 to conclude the survey
bandobast, initiated under Section 49 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as "Code, 2006"), in respect to
village- Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj,
Tehsil- Tarabganj, District- Gonda within
stipulated period of time as fixed by this
Court. The petitioner further submitted that
the matter of survey bandobast is pending
since 2020 and the gazette notification was
also annexed alongwith the writ petition.

4. Considering the above said prayer,
the coordinate bench of this Court passed
the
order
on
27.09.2022,
which
is
reproduced hereinunder:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Notice
on
behalf
of
the
respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by
the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

By means of the instant petition,
the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents No. 2 and 3 to conclude the
survey bandobast under Section 49 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of
Village-Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj,
Tehsil Tarabaganj, Ditrict Gonda.

Learned standing counsel submits
that he has no objection in case an expedite
order is passed.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that no gainful purpose will be served in
keeping the aforesaid petition pending
rather ends of justice can be served by
directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to to
conclude the survey bandobast under
Section 49 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
in respect of Village-Majha Rath and
Majha
Durgaganj,
Tehsil
Tarabaganj,
Ditrict Gonda preferably within a period of
six months from the date an authenticated
copy of this order is placed before the
authority concerned.
12 All. Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
493

It is made clear that the Court
has not examined the case of either of the
parties on merits and the authority
concerned shall be free to decide the matter
strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is
disposed of."

5. This Court while disposing of the
writ petition (Matters Under Article 227)
No.3726 of 2022 directed to the opposite
party nos.2 and 3 to conclude the survey
bandobast under Section 49 of the Code,
2006 with respective villages, within period
of
six
months,
from
the
date
an
authenticated copy of the order is placed
before the authority concerned and it was
further observed that the Court did not
examine the case of the either parties, on
merits and it was open to the authorities to
proceed in accordance with law.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid
order,
the
petitioner
submitted
a
representation on 12.07.2023 and the said
representation was disposed of vide order
dated 28.07.2023, while informing to the
petitioner
that
the
survey
bandobast
proceeding is going on and this will take
some more time, ultimately the survey
proceeding could not be completed within
time prescribed by this Court and therefore,
the petitioner moved contempt petition
bearing no.2492 (Civil) of 2023, which is
pending consideration before the Hon'ble
Contempt Court.

7. The contention of counsel for the
State/applicant is that the petitioner is a
resident of village- Durgaganj and the dispute
is regarding time bound survey, as per Record
Maintenance Rule, 1978, by the survey team
headed by Assistant Record Officer, Ayodhya
and Gonda. He submits that the authorities
initiated the proceeding with respect of
conducting survey bandobast as per the
provisions contained in the Code, 2006 and
the proceedings are a bit late for the reason
that the sugar crop was ripe in the month of
September,
2022
and
thereafter
the
proceeding started in the month of December,
2022. In the month of December, the
proceeding of measurement (paimaish) were
initiated and it was duly processed, which
continued till the month of March, 2023 but
the dispute of the border arose between the
Districts- Ayodhya and Gonda and a suit was
instituted prior to further proceedings of the
measurement (paimaish) and a request was
made to the team of measurement (paimaish)
to drop the proceeding of survey bandobast.
In the meantime, period prescribed by the
Hon'ble Court for concluding the bandobast
survey proceedings got completed and thus
the petitioner preferred a contempt petition
before this Court, wherein the Hon'ble
Contempt Court vide order dated 09.11.2023,
while fixing a date, opened it to the applicants
to file compliance affidavit or any further
order, if passed on application for extension
of time moved by the applicant and failing
which the authorities were directed to appear
in person on 12.12.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that proceeding with respect to survey
bandobast could not be completed due to
bona fide and justified reasons as the survey
bandobast takes considerable period of time,
as estimated time is tabled in paragraph 4 of
the application and so far as the villages
under the survey are concerned, the expected
time for preparing survey is given in the chart
in paragraph 4. He added that at the ground
level, there are certain practical problems,
which takes time to be solved/ exhausted.

9. Adding his contentions, he submits
that
the
controversy
regarding
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainability
of
the
miscellaneous
application, after disposal of writ petition is
settled, in case of Abhishek Prabhakar
Awasthi
Vs.
New
India
Assurance
Company reported in (2013) SCC Online
Allahabad, wherein the Court has held that
the writ court has inherent jurisdiction to
grant extension of time in the interest of
justice while balancing both, the needs for
expeditious conclusion of the inquiry in the
interest
of
fairness
and
honest
administration. Placing reliance on a case
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 164 (K.A. Ansari
Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd.), he referred
paragraphs 17 to 21. Paragraphs 17 to 21
are reproduced hereinunder:-

"17. It is trite that a party is not
entitled to seek a review of a judgment
merely for the purpose of rehearing and a
fresh decision of the case. It needs little
emphasis that when the proceedings stand
terminated by final disposal of the writ
petition, it is not open to the court to
reopen the proceedings by means of
miscellaneous application in respect of a
matter which provides fresh cause of
action. If this principle is not followed,
there would be confusion and chaos and
the finality of proceedings would cease to
have any meaning. (See State of U.P. v.
Brahm Datt Sharma, SCC p. 188, para
10.) At the same time, there is no
prohibition on a party applying for
clarification, if the order is not clear and
the party against whom it has been made
is trying to take advantage because the
order is couched in ambiguous or
equivocal words.

18. Therefore, the question for
consideration in the instant case is whether
the miscellaneous application preferred by
the first appellant could be said to be
founded on a fresh cause of action?

19. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration on the rival submissions, we
are of the opinion that keeping in view the
terms of the final order dated 11-10-2004,
the miscellaneous application could not be
said to be founded on a separate or fresh
cause of action so as to fall foul of the
aforenoted
legal
position
viz.
on
termination
of
proceedings
by
final
disposal of writ petition, it is not open to
the court to reopen the proceedings by
means of a miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provided fresh
cause of action.

20. It is manifest that in Direction
(ii), the learned Single Judge had clearly
directed that the writ petitioners would be
entitled "to be posted to a post in
equivalent scale held by them when the
letter dated 23-4-2003 was issued". The
respondent Indian Airlines was obliged to
obey and implement the said direction. If
they had any doubt or if the order was not
clear, it was always open to them to
approach the court for clarification of the
said order. Without challenging the said
direction or seeking clarification, Indian
Airlines could not circumvent the same on
any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in
implementation of an order passed by the
court, howsoever grave its effect may be, is
no answer for its non-implementation.

21. In our opinion, in the
miscellaneous application, no fresh relief,
on the basis of a new cause of action, had
been sought. It was an application filed for
pursuing and getting implemented the relief
granted in the writ petition, namely,
placement in appropriate grade in which he
was placed at the time when letter dated
23-4-2003, was issued. This was precisely
done by the learned Single Judge vide his
order dated 4-3-2005."
12 All. Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495

10. Referring the aforesaid, counsel
for the petitioner submitted that it is a
settled law that a party is not entitled to
seek a review of a judgment merely for the
purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of
the case. It needs little emphasis that when
the proceeding stands terminated by final
disposal of the writ petition, it is not open
to the Court to reopen the proceedings by
means of miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provides fresh
cause of action. If the principle is not
followed, there would be a confusion and
the finality of the proceeding would cease
to have any meaning as held by the Hon'ble
Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Brahma Dutt Sharma reported in 1987 (2)
SCC 179, para 10.

11. At the same time, there is no
restrain on a party applying for clarification
if the order is not clear and the party
against whom it has been made, is trying to
take advantage because the order is caused
in
ambiguous
or
equivocal
words.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Court finally came
to the conclusion that miscellaneous
application, is maintainable, if it is not filed
agitating fresh cause of action.

12. Again reliance has been placed on a
case rendered in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs.
Union of India reported in (2012) 4 SCC 568
and submitted that as per the time prescribed,
the State Government started compliance of
fixing new high security registration plate but
the same could not be completed due to
certain reasons and despite the lapse of
considerable time, the Hon'ble Apex Court
was pleased to grant six weeks further time to
complete the remaining process and file the
affidavit of compliance.

13. Further contention of counsel for
the State/applicant is that so far as the
present case is concerned, the period of six
months was provided by the Hon'ble Court
for concluding the survey bandobast as per
the provisions of Section 49 of the Code,
2006 and the authorities in compliance of
the above said order, bona fidely proceeded
in the matter but unfortunately the survey
proceeding could not be concluded under
the compelling circumstances. He submits
that the prayer sought vide the instant
application do not open any proceeding
afresh but it is simply for extension of time,
wherein the reasons have been explained.
Therefore, submission is that the time
prescribed vide order dated 27.09.2022
may be extended for further reasonable
period of time as is probable and is shown,
vide the chart in paragraph 4 of the
application, to complete the survey.

14. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has vehemently
opposed the contention aforesaid and
submitted that the application filed by the
deponent/
State
authorities
are
not
maintainable as the same is amount to
review/ revision of the final order passed
by this Court. In support of his contention,
he placed reliance on the case of Brahma
Dutt
Sharma
(supra)
and
referred
paragraph
10.
Paragraph 10
of
the
judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-

"10. The High Court's order is
not sustainable for yet another reason.
Respondents' writ petition challenging the
order of dismissal had been finally
disposed of on August 10, 1984, thereafter
nothing remained pending before the High
Court. No miscellaneous application could
be filed in the writ petition to revive
proceedings in respect of subsequent events
after two years. If the respondent was
aggrieved by the notice dated January 29,
1986 he could have filed a separate petition
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Article 226 of the Constitution
challenging the validity of the notice as it
provided as separate cause of action to
him. The respondent was not entitled to
assail validity of the notice before the High
Court by means of a miscellaneous
application in the writ petition which had
already been decided. The High Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain the application
as no proceedings were pending before it.
The High Court committed error in
entertaining the respondent's application
which was founded on a separate cause of
action. When proceedings stand terminated
by final disposal of writ petition it is not
open to the court to reopen the proceedings
by means of a miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provided a fresh
cause of action. If this principle is not
followed there would be confusion and
chaos and the finality of proceedings would
cease to have any meaning."

15. He submitted that it has been held
by the Apex Court that no miscellaneous
application is permitted, in a finally
decided case.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next added that notification for survey
bandobast was done in the year, 2020 and
even
after
passing
of
3
years
no
considerable job is done to conclude the
survey proceeding as out of several
prapatra for survey, no prapatra has been
filed yet and therefore, the chart which has
been prepared in paragraph 4 of the
application is a disguise and the State
authorities have no respect and regard to
the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this
Court. He submitted that the time period
prescribed in the chart is totally based on
speculation and imagination and even no
provision of any statute is quoted so as to
time mentioned in the chart for completing
and filing the prapatra. He also submitted
that the reasons for delay in completing the
survey has not properly been explained in
the application and therefore, the same is
liable to be dismissed.

17. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it transpires that initially
writ petition was filed by the petitioner,
namely, Shatrughan Yadav before this
Court vide Matters Under Article 227
No.3726 of 2022, which was decided vide
order dated 27.09.2022, while issuing
directions to the respondent nos.2 and 3 of
the writ petition, to conclude the survey
bandobast as per provisions of Section 49
of the Code, 2006 regarding village- Majha
Rath and Majha Durgaganj, within period
of six months.

18. The aforesaid bandobast survey
could not be completed within prescribed
period of time and therefore, the contempt
petition bearing Contempt Case No.2492 of
2023 is instituted before the Hon'ble
Contempt Court.

19. Once the survey bandobast could
not be completed by the State authorities
within time prescribed by this Court, they
moved the instant application with the
prayer for extension of time as is prescribed
by this Court in the order dated 27.09.2022.

20. This Court examined the issue
which crop up before this Court that
whether the miscellaneous application is
maintainable in a finally decided petition
and secondly, that whether the reasons
mentioned in the application for extension
of time are sufficient and proper for
extension of time and the bona fide thereof
and it resulted that so long as the first
question with respect to maintainability of
12 All. Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
the application is concerned, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Brahma Dutt
Sharma
(supra)
has
held
that
'no
miscellaneous application could be filed in
the writ petition to revive proceeding in
respect of subsequent events after two
years.' The ratio which has been drawn by
the Apex Court is very overt from the
reading of the paragraph 10 of the
judgment as the same, says that the
miscellaneous
application
is
not
maintainable in respect of subsequent
events. So far as the present case is
concerned,
application
is
moved
for
extension of time and there is no other
prayer with respect to any subsequent
event. Had it been a case of the State
Government that by way of moving the
present application certain subsequent
events are brought for consideration and
disposal before this Court, the ratio of the
judgment in Brahma Dutt Sharma (supra)
would have been applied.

21. This Court is also not unmindful
to the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in case of Abhishek Prabhakar
Awasthi (supra) which deals with this issue
and answered the questions, which are
reproduced hereinunder:-

"19. In view of the above
discussion, we now proceed to answer the
questions which have been referred to the
Full Bench.

(A) Question No. (a): We hold that
if an enquiry is not concluded within the time
which has been fixed by the Court, it is open
to the employer to seek an extension of time
by making an appropriate application to the
court setting out the reasons for the delay in
the conclusion of the enquiry. In such an
event, it is for the court to consider whether
time should be extended, based on the facts
and circumstances of the case. However,
where there is a stipulation of time by the
Court, it will not be open to the employer to
disregard that stipulation and an extension of
time must be sought;

(B) Question No. (b): The judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh
Chandra (supra) as well as the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Satyendra Kumar Sahai (supra) clearly
indicate that a mere delay on the part of the
employer in concluding a disciplinary
enquiry will not ipso facto nullify the entire
proceedings in every case. The court which
has fixed a stipulation of time has jurisdiction
to extend the time and it is open to the court,
while exercising that jurisdiction, to consider
whether the delay has been satisfactorily
explained. The court can suitably extend time
for conclusion of the enquiry either in a
proceeding instituted by the employee
challenging the enquiry on the ground that it
was not completed within the stipulated
period or even upon an independent
application moved by the employer. The court
has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an
extension of time, the original stipulation of
time having been fixed by the court itself.
Such an extension of time has to be
considered in the interests of justice
balancing both the need for expeditious
conclusion of the enquiry in the interests of
fairness and an honest administration. In an
appropriate case, it would be open to the
Court to extend time suo motu in order to
ensure that a serious charge of misconduct
does not go unpunished leading to a serious
detriment to the public interest. The court has
sufficient powers to grant an extension of
time both before and after the period
stipulated by the court has come to an end."

22. The Full Bench while dealing
with the issue of extension of time for
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concluding a disciplinary proceeding that
the time prescribed by the Court can be
extended on an appropriate application,
explaining the reasons for the delay and
thus
has
opened
the
door
for
maintainability
of
the
miscellaneous
application in the decided petition so far as
the extension of time is concerned.

23. In fact, the extension of time is
not amount to reviving the proceeding for
subsequent events and the circumstances in
the given situation is identical to the
judgment rendered by the Full Bench in
case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi
(supra). In fact, the Court provides the time
for concluding any proceedings either there
is any provision of any statute which
provides the time period or the probable
time for concluding any proceeding to the
discretion of the Court, if no such time
prescribed by the statute. Even the time
which is prescribed for conclusion of any
proceeding by any authority or Court also
depends on probability of conclusion of the
same and it would not be proper to stop the
further proceeding if prescribed time is
over, otherwise that shall hamper the very
object of dispensation of justice.

24. So far as the first question is
concerned, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the application for extension
of time prescribed in a decided writ
petition is maintainable provided the
reasons are properly and categorically
explained and the bona fide of such
authorities
are
shown,
subject
to
condition that the same would not change
the nature of the final judgment and order
and further no subsequent event is
brought for adjudication afresh.

25. Dealing with the second issue as
is raised by the petitioner, while filing the
objection that the reasons for non
compliance of the order dated 27.09.2022
has not properly been explained, this
Court gone through the reasons explained
in the affidavit in support of the
application for extension of time. In
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, the reasons for non
compliance of the order dated 27.09.2022
within time prescribed, is explained, as
due to the ripe of the crop of sugarcane,
over the land in question, the survey
proceeding was stopped for some period
of time. This Court has also noticed the
chart transcribed under paragraph 4 of the
affidavit which says that for completing
the survey of the village, this will take
more than five years, though, the time
prescribed are not based on any statutory
provision but
it
is
based
on
the
probability
and
this
Court
is
of
considered opinion that the test of
reasonable period of time, essentially be
taken care off in case, the party to the
case is approaching the Court for
extension of time period.

26. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, the instant
application is hereby allowed.

27. Consequently, the applicants/
State authorities i.e. respondent nos.2 and
3 are given further period of one year to
conclude the survey bandobast of village-
Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil-
Tarabganj, District- Gonda and liberty is
also granted to the applicants that if the
aforesaid
survey
bandobast
is
not
completed within the time prescribed by
this Court, they may move application for
further
extension
of
time,
while
explaining the bona fide reasons and
mentioning the stage of the proceedings
done, uptill filing of such application.
----------
12 All. Laxmi Kant Vs. Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar & Ors.
499
(2023) 12 ILRA 499
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6134 of 2023

Laxmi Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge (Jn. Dv.), Ambedkar Nagar &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raj Karan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
227-application
for
expedite
disposal-petitioner filed a regular suit for
cancellation of gift deed-petitioner has not
filed the replication before the trial court
till date for which petitioner himself is
seeking time before the trial court for the
last ten months, therefore a litigant, who
himself is not assisting the court, cannot
approach this court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for a direction for
expeditious disposal of the suit-direction
cannot be issued in a routine manner
unless there is some extra ordinary
urgency/situation, on account of which
the delay may cause gross injustice.(Para
1 to 15)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shobha Bose Vs Judge, Small Causes & ors.
(2010) 1 ADJ 531

2. Ali Shad Usmani & ors. Vs Ali Isteba & ors.
(2015) 109 ALR 513 (MANU/UP/3334/2014)

3. Yusuf Kamal Khan Vs Board of Revenue Lko.
& ors. Misc. Single No 2862 of 2020,
4. Yashpal Jain Vs Sushila Devi & ors. Civil
Appeal No. 4296 of 2023

5. Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain Vs The St. of
Mah. Crl WP No. 587/2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Shri Raj Karan Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed Regular Suit No.925 of
2022; Laxmi Kant Versus Kamla Devi and
others for cancellation of Gift Deed made
by the respondent no.3 in favour of
respondent no.2, which has not been
disposed of till date, therefore a direction
may be issued for disposal of the said Suit
expeditiously within a time bound manner.

2. Perusal of the order sheet, placed on
record indicates that the written statement
was filed on 02.02.2023 and since 11.04.2023
the case is being fixed for filing replication
by the petitioner, but till date the same has not
been filed. As admitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has
died, therefore he has moved an application
for substitution, a copy of which has been
placed on record as annexure no.3 to this
petition, which has still not been disposed of.

3. On a query being put, learned
counsel for the petitioner also failed to
indicate any urgency in the matter. He only
states that the case is pending for the last
one year, therefore a direction may be
issued for early disposal of the case.

4. Having considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have
perused the records.

5. This petition has been filed
arraying a dead person as respondent no.3
in this petition, who was defendant in the