Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar Yadava vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Lalganj ... on 26 July, 2022
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2608 of 2022 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Yadava Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate Lalganj Pratapgarh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.
No notice need to be issued to the private respondents taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of finally.
The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to respondent no.1 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, District Pratapgarh to decide the case no. 01893 of 2019 (Computerized Case No. T201902570201893) in re: Chedi Lal and others vs Smt. Najma Begam and others filed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in terms of Rule 109(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 a time period of six months has been given for deciding of the suit from the date of its filing and if the suit is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded. He contends that despite lapse of the aforesaid time period, the suit has still not been decided.
Considering the aforesaid, it is provided that the aforesaid proceedings be taken to its logical end within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to concerned parties provided there is no legal impediment or to record the reasons for not deciding the same. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the concerned Court and in case of any adjournment on the part of the petitioner, the benefit of this order would not be available to him.
It is however clarified that all facts shall be subject to due verification and any proceeding that may be adopted will be with due notice to all the concerned/affected parties.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if lawyers are abstaining from work even then the petitioner shall put in appearance and argue the case failing which benefit of this order will not be available to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022 J.K. Dinkar