Allahabad High Court
KIRAN DEVI VERMAversusKAMAL CHANDRA MISHRA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the High Court directs the trial court to decide the pending civil revision within three months, without adjudicating the merits of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Kiran Devi Verma, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking the expeditious disposal of Civil Revision No. 173 of 2024, which had been filed after an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed to implead her as a defendant. The petition contained no other relief and did not seek any substantive adjudication of the underlying dispute. The High Court observed that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of it at the admission stage without calling for a counter‑affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents. The Court directed the concerned trial court to decide the pending civil revision in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within three months of the order. It was expressly stated that the matter was not decided on its merits. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the case was referred back for procedural determination.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 227 seeking only an expeditious disposal of a pending civil revision is maintainable.
- Whether the High Court can dispose of such a writ petition without hearing the parties or issuing a notice to private respondents.
Subjects
- Article 227
- Civil Revision
- Writ Petition
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Procedural Direction
- Expeditious Disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11883 of 2026
Kiran Devi Verma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kamal Chandra Mishra And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar, Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant in
the suit filed by respondent no. 1. The application was allowed against which
plaintiff-revisionist filed Civil Revision No. 173 of 2024, which is pending
consideration. The sole prayer made in the writ petition is for expeditious
disposal of the civil revision.
2. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the
writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for
counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction
upon court concerned to decide the Civil Revision No. 173 of 2024, in
accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
3. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…