Allahabad High Court
JYOTSANA SHIKSHA SAMITI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the trial court to decide the pending appeal within a month, without adjudicating the merits.
Summary
The petitioners obtained a temporary injunction in a suit, which the State appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. The State's appeal was delayed, and a condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was granted by the trial court. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of the appeal. The High Court, noting that keeping the matter pending served no useful purpose, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage without hearing the private respondents. The Court directed the trial court to decide the pending miscellaneous civil appeal within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order. No merits of the original injunction dispute were adjudicated.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court could entertain a delayed miscellaneous civil appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.
- Whether condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is permissible in the present circumstances.
- Whether the writ petition under Article 227 should be disposed of without hearing the private respondents.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- miscellaneous civil appeal
- condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- CPC Order XLIII
- Article 227
- writ petition
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12181 of 2026
Jyotsana Shiksha Samiti And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Shukla, Harsh Vardhan
Pandey, Satya Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This is plaintiffs' petition. In the suit filed by plaintiffs, an application for
grant of temporary injunction was moved which was allowed by trial court
against which State has preferred a delayed misc. civil appeal under Order
XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. In the said appeal, an application for condonation of
delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed which has been allowed
by order impugned.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners, after some argument, states that appeal
itself may be decided, as expeditiously as possible.
3. 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 misc. civil appeal filed under Order
XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by State, in accordance with law, after hearing all
affected parties, preferably within a period of one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…