Allahabad High Court
PAPPUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The High Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the interim application within eight weeks, without expressing any opinion on the merits, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
Pappu filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide an interim application dated 04‑04‑2026 in Appeal No.112 of 2018 (Budhiraji v. Mannuram). The petitioner alleged that despite several dates being fixed, the interim application remained pending, causing prejudice and delay. The Court, after hearing counsel, observed that keeping the writ petition pending served no useful purpose and, without expressing any view on the merits, ordered respondent No.2 to decide the interim application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of the certified copy of the order, after proper service and hearing. The order also directed the parties not to create any third‑party rights pending disposal and prohibited unnecessary adjournments unless a legal impediment existed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of finally.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a court to decide an interim application within a stipulated time
- Whether the High Court can restrain parties from creating third‑party rights pending disposal of the interim application
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- interim application
- expeditious disposal
- court delay
- civil procedure
- Allahabad High Court
- Article 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14593 of 2026
Pappu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rashid Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2 to decide the interim application dated 04.04.2026 in
Appeal No. 112 of 2018 Computer Case No. D202016660002925/112
(Budhiraji Versus Mannuram and others) within a stipulated period of
time which may fix by this Hon'ble Court. It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may very kindly be please to direct to the parties concern
to do not create third. party right till the disposal of the application or
Appeal pending before respondent no.2."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid interim
application in appeal is pending consideration. It is further contended that
several dates have been fixed but the same has not been decided yet. He
prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
finally with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the
aforementioned interim application, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a
WRIC No. 14593 of 2026
2
certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite
parties and 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.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
April 20, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…