Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3316
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
Indrawati & Another - Appellant
Versus
Shri Pati Mishra & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6921 (M/S) of 2014
Decided On : 05-11-2014
For the Petitioner: Santosh Kumar Mehrotra,Ishwar Dutt Shukla
For the Respondent: Amit Kumar Singh
Courts can direct parties to maintain the status quo and expedite proceedings in civil suits, with a prohibition on unnecessary adjournments.
Headnote:
Notice - Civil Procedure - The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo and not alienate the property until the conclusion of the suit. It also expedited the proceedings and prohibited unnecessary adjournments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought dispensation of notices to certain respondents and argued that the trial court and appellate court did not consider relevant circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo and expedited the proceedings, with a prohibition on unnecessary adjournments.
Issues: Dispensation of notices, consideration of relevant circumstances, maintenance of status quo, expediting proceedings, prohibition on unnecessary adjournments
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consent of the respondent's counsel and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo, expedited the proceedings, and prohibited unnecessary adjournments.
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.: -
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has lodged a caveat on his behalf.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for dispensing with the requirement of issuing notices to respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the reason that respondent no.2 is the son of petitioner no.1 and respondents no.3 and 4 are her grand sons and they have been arrayed as proforma respondents.
3. Accordingly, notices to respondents no.2, 3 & 4 are dispensed with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court below have not taken into consideration the circumstances, specially the fact that since the son and grand sons of the petitioner no.1 are well placed, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have executed the sale deed in respect of the property in suit. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 37 of the written statement wherein contrary statement has been made as regards the payment of sale consideration.
5. Keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel representing the respondent no.1, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the parties to the suit to maintain the status quo till disposal of the suit itself.
6. It is further provided that the parties to the suit or their heirs or their representatives shall? not alienate the property till the proceedings of the suit are concluded.
7. It is also directed that the proceedings of the Regular Suit No.03 of 2011 shall be expedited by the learned court below and the same will be concluded within a maximum period of eighteen months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is further directed that parties to the suit shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments in the matter except in extraordinary circumstances. If any such prayer by either of the parties to the suit is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
