Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203054 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND ANOTHER

A227/6630/2025 · 2025-11-14

Alok Mathur

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6630 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to the private respondent is dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No.2- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, to decide Original Suit No. RST-446 of 1987-88, Om Prakash v. Ram Khelavan and ors., which is pending since 1987-88, expeditiously, within stipulated time period fixed by the Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 2 considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no.2- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, is directed to consider and decide Original Suit No. RST-446 of 1987-88, Om Prakash v. Ram Khelavan and ors., which is pending since 1987-88, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in case there is no legal impediment, in accordance with law. 7. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case, failing which the benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner. 8. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Pratap Singh, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Ved Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Om Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) November 14, 2025 A.Nigam A227 No. 6630 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench