Allahabad High Court
INDIAN BANKversusKRISHNA KUMAR AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the lower court to decide the stay application within two weeks, without adjudicating the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Indian Bank, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking an order directing the Additional District Judge, Bareilly, to decide a stay application filed in a pending civil appeal (Misc. Civil Case No. 60 of 2026) expeditiously. The civil appeal arose from a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction decreed against the respondents, Krishna Kumar and another, and the stay application is pending. The High Court, finding no merit in continuing the writ petition, disposed of it at the admission stage without calling for a counter‑affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents. The Court directed the lower court to decide the stay application within two weeks of the certified copy of the order, after hearing all affected parties. The High Court clarified that it has not adjudicated the substantive merits of the underlying dispute.
Issues considered
- What jurisdiction does the High Court have under Article 227 to direct a lower court to decide a pending stay application expeditiously?
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- stay application
- civil appeal
- injunction
- expeditious disposal
- jurisdiction
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12697 of 2026
Indian Bank
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Krishna Kumar And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to decide the stay application
filed alongwith the Misc. Civil Appeal which has been registered as Misc.
Civil Case No.60 of 2026 Indian Bank Vs Krishna Kumar and another,
pending in the court of Ld. Additional District Judge Court No. VIth
Bareilly expeditiously, within a specific time period which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that plaintiffs-
respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction as well as for
mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed against which a delayed civil
appeal has been preferred by defendant-petitioner, which is pending
consideration. In the said civil appeal, a stay application has been moved,
which is also pending consideration. The prayer is for expeditious disposal
of the stay application.
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 stay application filed in Misc. Civil Case
No. 60 of 2026 (Indian Bank vs. Krishna Kumar and another), in accordance
with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two
weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
A227 No. 12697 of 2026
2
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 14, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…