ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY v. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION KADIPUR DISTT. SULTANPUR AND 2 OTHERS
A227/6810/2025 · 2025-12-01
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 175693 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 175693 (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. - 6810 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. Nobody is present to press the application and no request for adjournment of the case has been made, therefore, the Court proceeds to decide the petition by perusing the record.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadipur, Sultanpur to decide Original Suit No. 135/2015 expeditiously.
3. The petitioner has impleaded the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kadipur, Sultanpur as the opposite party whereas in the case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur: (1999) 2 SCC 577 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the civil court cannot be impleaded as an opposite party to the petition.
4. Therefore, the petition suffers from defect of mis-joinder of the parties.
5. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 for specific performance for contract and cancellation of sale deed, on 11.03.2015.
6. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court annexed with the petition indicates that this petition was presented on 19.11.2025 and it was passed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Ashok Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge Junior Division Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
over on previous occasions also. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that the service has been affected through publication, as is evident from a copy of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the trial court and no order has been passed holding service of summons to be sufficient.
7. In these circumstances, no direction can be issued for expeditious disposal of the suit at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as this stage leaving it open for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the trial court itself. December 1, 2025 Pradeep/- A227 No. 6810 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench