HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3482 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mihir Ghosh Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the defendant was rejected by the trial court and the revision filed by the defendant against the said order has been allowed and the matter was remanded to decide the application afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revisional court has directed the trial court to decide the application in view of the findings recorded by the revisional court and therefore, virtually nothing remains to be decided by the trial court. 3. Since the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is pending consideration, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. 4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the trial court to consider and decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, 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, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kokil Agarwal, Prateek Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Krishnatreya, Mihir Ghosh Roy Mohd Akhtar Nami .....Petitioner(s) Mohd. Adil And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) any of the findings recorded by the revisional court. March 19, 2026 Nitika Sri. A227 No. 3482 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad