SMT. SARITA SRIVASTAVA AND 5 OTHERS v. CIVIL JUDGE F.T.C. (S.D.) LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
A227/5623/2025 · 2025-09-22
Jaspreet Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165198 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165198 (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. - 5623 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent no. 2 to 6 is dispensed with. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. The petitioners have approached this Court with a limited prayer that a suit for injunction was filed by the private respondent no. 2 against the private respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the year 2017. It is urged that the present petitioners had already purchased the property in question by means of the several sale-deeds between 26.2.2017 till 19.12.2005. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioners had filed an application for impleadment, which is bearing paper no. C-33, engaging the attention of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lucknow. It is urged that the several dates have been fixed by the court on the said application and the application came to be decided only on 21.1.2023. The record indicates that the petitioners filed their written statement on 18.5.2024 and since then the issues have not been framed. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that since the issues have not been framed and despite the order dated 21.1.2023 the petitioner filed their written statement only in the year 2024. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Razdan, Ankur Razdan Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Smt. Sarita Srivastava And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge F.T.C. (S.D.) Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
Accordingly, this Court at this stage is not inclined to entertain this petition leaving it open for the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the court concerned and needless to say if any such application is moved the court concerned shall consider the same and decide it in accordance with law. It is also made clear that merely declining to entertain the petition at this stage may not come in the way of the petitioner's case in case any cause for expedition arises in future. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. September 22, 2025 kanhaiya A227 No. 5623 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench