LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to decide the pending application of the Petitioner seeking vacation of ad interim order at the earliest on day to day basis. ii) to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action or to issue appropriate directions to the learned Trial Court to decide the regular Suit No.132 of 1993-City Montessori School Vs. Lucknow Development Authority within the time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) to allow the writ petition and award the cost." Heard Sri D.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2. Notice need not be issued to the opposite parties No.3 and 4 in view of the order, which is proposed to be passed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No.3 filed Regular Suit No.132 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Malihabad (Senior Division), Lucknow on 17.08.1993 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from demolishing the premises B-320 Kamla Kunj, Mahanagar, Lucknow and on the same day an ex-parte interim injunction order was passed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge, Malihabad (Senior Division), Lucknow on his application 6-C whereby the defendant/petitioner was restrained from demolishing the building in question. THE petitioner filed an application for vacating the ex-parte injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff/ opposite party No.3 in December, 1993 supported by an affidavit. THE said application was numbered as C-21. However, despite expiry of almost 16 years neither the regular suit has been decided nor the temporary injunction application 6-C filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party No.3 in the suit in question nor the petitioner's application C-21 have been decided till date. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer made in the writ petition appears to be innocuous. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the following directions: I. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file a certified copy of the order passed by this Court today before the District Judge, Lucknow/ opposite party No.1 within ten days from today. II. Upon receiving the certified copy of this order, the opposite party No.1 shall consider and decide the applications 6-C and C-21 pending before him within a further period of one month. III. THE District Judge, Lucknow/ opposite party No.1 shall make every possible endeavour to decide the Regular Suit No.132 of 1993 expeditiously, if possible within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order provided there is no other legal impediment.