HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6631 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list of fresh cases. Nobody is present to press the petition and no request for adjournment of the case has been made. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking issuance of a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow for expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 1488/2024 which has been filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties no. 2, 3 & 4 seeking a decree of cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction. The suit was filed on 14.05.2024 and the court found that no case was made out for grant of an exparte temporary injunction order and issued notice to the defendants. 3. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court indicates that nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff on 16.07.2024 and the matter was adjourned to 01.10.2024 on which date the advocates were abstaining from work. One of the defendants put in appearance on 03.01.2025 and the office was directed to submit a report as to whether the petitioner has taken steps for service of notice on the remaining defendants. On 18.02.2025, the plaintiff sought adjournment of the case. On 23.05.2025, the presiding officer of the court was on leave. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre by means of an order dated 25.07.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajnish Kumar Singh, Shashank Vikram Shah, Sonal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Wing Commander Monica Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. There is no averment in the petition that all the defendants in the suit have been served. 5. It is indeed disturbing that the petitioner has impleaded Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow as opposite party no. 1 to the petition and has pleaded in para 19 that 'the act of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow is apparently unjust, improper and arbitrary and the interference of this Court is required to meet the ends of justice'. 6. It is as far back as in the year 1999 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur: (1999) 2 SCC 577, has strongly deprecated the practice of impleading civil courts as opposite party to the petition. Again in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujrat: (2015) 9 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that civil courts do not come forward to defend their orders and judgment and as such civil courts could not be impleaded as opposite party. 7. In spite of repetitive pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the petitioner has impleaded Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow as opposite party to the petition and has levelled allegations against the Civil Judge in para 19, which is wholly unwarranted and is deprecated. As has already been noted, the petitioner herself failed to attend the proceedings on some of the dates and thereafter the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. In these circumstances, imputing allegations against the trial court of acting in apparently unjust, improper and arbitrary manner, is absolutely baseless and the same is expunged from the petition. 8. However, as expeditious disposal of proceedings would be expedient in the interest of justice, the petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow to proceed with Original Suit No. 1488/2024 and to decide the petitioner's application for temporary injunction expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, including the petitioner herself and to pass appropriate order in case of failure of the petitioner to appear before the court to render requisite assistance. 9. Had the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court, A227 No. 6631 of 2025 2 the court would have directed him to delete the name of the court from the array of the opposite parties but in absence of the petitioner or her counsel such a direction cannot be issued. November 14, 2025 Pradeep/- A227 No. 6631 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench