Sri Ramashankar Ravi vs The Principal Secretary (Revenue) And 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 35699 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sri Ramashankar Ravi vs The Principal Secretary (Revenue) And 3 ... on 18 December, 2023

Author: Jayant Banerji

Bench: Jayant Banerji

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239113
 
Court No. - 1
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9930 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Sri Ramashankar Ravi
 
Respondent :- The Principal Secretary (Revenue) And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohitosh Singh,Vinay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
 

List has been revised. No one appears to press this petition.

This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

"I. To issue, order or direction to direct the respondent no.2 ( s.P. Ghazipur) not to give any illegal help to respondent no.4 to grab the property in question.

II. To issue order or direction staying the Execution Suit No. 12 of 2022 ( Ram Vriksha Versus Judge & others) pending in the Court Addl. Civil Judge Jr. Division, Ghazipur."

Learned Standing Counsel states that the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 have been made parties in this petition unnecessarily as they were not parties in the suit nor apparently were they impleaded later on.

A perusal of the first page of the judgment of the appellate court that appears on page 14 of this petition reflects that the submission of the learned Standing Counsel is correct.

Be that as it may, since no one appears to press this petition, it is dismissed for non-prosecution.

After this order was passed, Mr. Anup Kumar Chaubey, Advocate (AOR No.A/A0817/2021) holding brief of Sri Mohitosh Singh, Advocate requests an adjournment on the ground that Sri Mohitosh Singh is unwell. However, vakalatnama has been filed both by Mohitosh Singh and Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocates.

Since, name of Sri Vinay Kumar is also reflected in this petition, who has not appeared and there is no reason for his non appearance when the list was revised, the request for adjournment is declined. Since, the learned counsel making the mention expresses his inability to argue, the aforesaid order of dismissal stands.

Order Date :- 18.12.2023sfa/

(Jayant Banerji, J)