Allahabad High Court
MOHD AKHTAR NAMIversusMOHD. ADIL AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the pending Order VII Rule 11 application expeditiously, uninfluenced by the revisional court's findings.
Summary
The petition under Article 227 challenged the trial court's handling of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The petitioner argued that the revisional court had already remanded the matter to the trial court, leaving little for the trial court to decide, and that the petition should therefore be dismissed. The court noted that the application under Order VII Rule 11 remained pending and that keeping the petition alive served no useful purpose. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, directing the trial court to decide the pending application expeditiously within six months, without being influenced by the revisional court's findings. The order emphasized adherence to law, opportunity of hearing, and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition under Article 227 should be dismissed when the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is pending before the trial court.
- Whether the trial court must decide the pending application independently of the revisional court's findings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- Article 227
- Order VII Rule 11
- revision
- remand
- expeditious disposal
- supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3482 of 2026
Mohd Akhtar Nami
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mohd. Adil And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kokil Agarwal, Prateek Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Krishnatreya, Mihir Ghosh Roy
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
A227 No. 3482 of 2026
2
any of the findings recorded by the revisional court.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
March 19, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…