Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 97962 (ALL)

SHAKIL AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

A227/11408/2025 · 2025-09-18

Manish Kumar Nigam

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11408 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief: " i. direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Firozabad to decide the 6C application filed under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. in Original suit No. 233 of 2025, Shakil Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Firozabad & others pending before him most expeditiously and within time framed as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a suitable order or direction against the defendants- respondents to restrain them not to dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner and not to demolish any construction of plaintiff- petitioner further till the disposal of Original suit No. 233 of 2025, Shakil Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Firozabad & others pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Firozabad.." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application for interim injunction (6C Application) is pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Firozabad and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously. 4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Firozabad to consider and decide the interim injunction application (6C Application), in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shakil Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) upon all the concerned parties as well as giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. September 19, 2025 S. Singh A227 No. 11408 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad