Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 188536 (ALL)

M/S ABIDI ENTERPRISES THRU. ITS PARTNER SYED MAHMOOD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL UNIVERSITY ROAD LKO. AND ANOTHER

A227/6559/2025 · 2025-11-11

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6559 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have wrongly impleaded the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow as opposite party no.1 to the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit admitting this error but there is no application for deleting the Tribunal from array of the opposite parties. 4. In these circumstances, the petition suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties. 5. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide S.A. No.115 of 2021 and S.A. No.98 of 2024 expeditiously. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satendra Kumar Singh, Paresh Kumar Singh, Pratima Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kapish Srivastava M/S Abidi Enterprises Thru. Its Partner Syed Mahmood Akhtar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Registrar Debt Recovery Tribunal University Road Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. A perusal of the order sheet of the Tribunal annexed with the petition indicates that the petitioners themselves have repetitively sought adjournments of the proceedings and even on the last date fixed on 04.09.2025 the learned counsel for the petitioners had sought adjournment of the proceedings, whereupon the proceedings were adjourned and the next date has been fixed for 16.12.2025 for hearing final submissions. 7. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to issue any direction for early disposal of the proceedings when the petitioners themselves have repetitively sought adjournment of the proceedings. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 11, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6559 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench