Allahabad High Court
Ram Sumer And Ors. (Complaint Case) vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 1 March, 2013
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 26 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 287 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ram Sumer And Ors. (Complaint Case) Respondent :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi,Mrs. Sanju Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
1. Vide order dated 24.1.2013 notice was issued to serve respondent no.2. I find that interim direction was issued while issuing notice.
2. Now, the petition is listed for hearing under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It has been said that stay be extended and the needful would be done during the course of the day.
3. When notice is issued, under Chapter XII Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, necessary steps are required to be taken by the petitioner for service on respondent(s) within ten days.
4. Order of stay is granted while considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering equitable grounds. It is a discretionary relief given to a litigant in the hope that the lis shall be settled on an early date after hearing the petitioner, as also the contesting respondent(s). However, in case the necessary steps are not taken for service on the respondent(s) , while the petitioner is taking advantage of the order of stay, the proceedings in this court continue in abeyance due to inaction on the part of the petitioner.
5. This court finds that every day a number of cases are being listed under Chapter XII Rule 4. In all such cases stay has been taken by the petitioner, however, in accordance with Allahabad High Court Rules needful is not being done to enable service on the contesting respondent(s). Thus, benefit of ex parte stay is taken by the petitioner, which is in abuse of process of the court.
6. A large number of cases are pending where stay has been granted. While the lower court is not able to proceed with the proceedings, in this court also appropriate steps are not taken so as to conclude the case at the earliest point in time.
7. In view of above, I find that in the present case also undue benefit of the order of stay has been taken and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continuance of order of stay.
8. Stay order in this case is hereby vacated.
9. The petitioner is required to take steps to serve respondent no.2 within one week , whereupon let notice be issued, returnable in six weeks.
10. Copy of this order be conveyed to the trial court through Registrar of this Court.
Order Date :- 1.3.2013 A.Nigam