NITYA NAND PANDEY Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE V CIVIL JUDGE SD GORAKHPUR
LAWS(ALL)-2000-9-104
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 08,2000

NITYA NAND PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE V/CIVIL JUDGE (SD), GORAKHPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. - (1.) In the Instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V/Civil Judge (Senior Division). Gorakhpur to adjudicate and decide Original Suit No. 1990 of 1988, Nitya Wand Pandey v. Sharda Prasad Pandey and others within a specified time.
(2.) The facts alleged by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from cutting down the trees standing over the suit land as well as from raising any construction over the same. A relief for mandatory injunction for removal of boundary wall and door raised over the suit land has also been claimed. The aforesaid suit filed on 9.8.1988 was registered as Original Suit No. 1990 of 1988, Nttya Nand Pandey v. Sharda Prasad Pandey and others in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur, now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur.
(3.) Tn the said suit, written statement was filed and necessary issues were settled. The parties also led their evidence in support of their respective claims. It has been alleged by the writ petitioner that the defendants, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the Instant writ petition, are adopting dilatory tactics by taking adjournments and are trying to prolong the litigation by filing one application or the other very often. The suit was fixed for final hearing on 8.12.1999. In the meantime on 30.11.1999 the respondent made an application for making formal order and on 8.12.1999 the respondents sought for adjournment, which was allowed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs. 20 as costs, fixing 23.12.1999. Thereafter several dates were fixed by the trial court but the respondents did not allow the trial court to proceed with the suit and on one pretext or the other got adjournments. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be Issued directing the District Judge to expeditiously dispose of the trial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.