VINOD KUMAR SAHU AND 4 OTHERS v. IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.) MALIHABAD LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
A227/5247/2025 · 2025-09-09
Jaspreet Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161825 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161825 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5247 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek expeditious disposal of their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved in Regular Suit No.1449 of 2025 which as per the petitioners is pending since 31.05.2025. 4. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether he had moved an application before the Court concerned bring it to the notice regarding the alleged urgency as pleaded. In response thereto, it has been informed that the petitioners had moved an application for early hearing on 14.08.2025, however, no orders were passed. 5. It is, at this stage, the Court had required to Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel, who usually appears for the High Court to seek instructions in the matter and upon instructions, it has been informed that the officer concerned had on leave since 27.08.2025 till 25.09.2025. 6. The Court had also put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case if their application did not find favour with the Court on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Katyayan Mishra, Mahendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Vinod Kumar Sahu And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) In The Court Of Civil Judge (S.D.) Malihabad Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
14.08.2025, whether the petitioners had moved any other further application and since it has been informed by Shri Jain that the officer concerned was on leave w.e.f. 27.08.2025, whether any further application for seeking transfer was moved on the premise that there was huge urgency and unless the same would be considered, it would give rise to conditions which may result in irreparable injury which he answered in negative. 7.
Be that as it may, since the only request for expediting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned where the Regular Suit No.1449 of 2025 is pending to consider the application for interim injunction as prayed by the petitioners prior to 06.10.2025 affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties also noticing that there is no other legal impediment in doing so. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. September 9, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 5247 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench