HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6286 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 2. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "To direct the learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First, Ayodhya to decide the Misc. Case No. 3 of 2024 (Dharmraj Maurya Versus Vidyadhar and others), by means of which the petitioner has sought execution of judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990, in a time bound manner, in the interest of justice." 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that late father of the petitioner namely Raj Kumar filed a suit for partition, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 57 of 1980. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 09.05.1986. Thereafter he preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgement and order 09.05.1986, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1986 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27.01.1990. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order dated 27.01.1990, the opposite parties herein preferred a second appeal, which was registered as Second Appeal No. 115 of 1990 (Sant Ram @ Santu Versus Raj Kumar and others). It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the said Second Appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sameer Singh, Ajay Singh, Sakshi Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmaraj Maurya .....Petitioner(s) Vidyadhar And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 10.11.2022. 5. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the opposite parties herein preferred an application for restoration of the said order dated 10.11.2022 but are not pursuing the same and are playing the delaying tactics just to keep the application for restoration pending. 6. Supplementary affidavit dated 03.11.2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, the same is taken on record. Along with the said supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 18.07.2024 that shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment of the matter to enable him to prepare and argue the case. 7. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Second Appeal is still lying dismissed and opposite parties are not pursuing the application for restoration causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 8. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that in the Execution Case filed by the petitioner having Execution Case No. 3 of 2024 (Dharmraj Maurya Versus Vidyadhar and others), notices were issued to the opposite parties/judgment debtor and the same have already been served upon them but they are avoiding to appear before the Court concerned. 9. Looking into the facts of the case as narrated herein-above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ist, Ayodhya to dispose of the said Execution Case No. 3 of 2024 (Dharmraj Maurya Versus Vidyadhar and others) expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. November 3, 2025 Arun A227 No. 6286 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench