HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6809 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri P.K. Shukla, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sankalp Rastogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.43, Lucknow to decide Civil Suit No.641 of 2021 titled Rachna Jain v. Broto Chatterjee and Anr. expeditiously. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent No.1. The temporary injunction application filed in the suit was rejected and an appeal filed challenging the rejection of the temporary injunction application was also rejected. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 has challenged the rejection orders before this Court but they failed to get any interim relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although there is no temporary injunction order in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is causing delay in disposal of the suit and is creating unnecessary trouble for the petitioner in the garb of pendency of the suit. 6. In these circumstances, the instant petition is disposed off by issuing a direction to Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.43, Lucknow to decide Civil Suit No.641 of 2021 titled Rachna Jain v. Broto Chatterjee and Anr. expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals. November 21, 2025 -Amit K- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sankalp Rastogi Counsel for Respondent(s) : (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Broto Chatterjee .....Petitioner(s) Rachna Jain And Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench