High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhagwati Pandey vs Janki Joshi And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 UK CK 0406

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petiton No. 522 Of 2026 (M/S)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 250 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner–plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Judge, Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Haldwani, District Nainital to decide the Civil Suit No.146 of 2021“Bhagwati Pandey versus Janki Joshi and Another” filed by the petitioner before Civil Judge Senior Division, Haldwani, District Nainital.

(ii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2.

Heard Mr. Kovid Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Alok Dalakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

Mr. Kovid Bhatt, Advocate, submitted that the petitioner has filed the Civil Suit No.146 of 2021 for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. The said suit is pending for plaintiff’s evidence.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital is directed to make an endeavour to decide the Civil Suit No.146 of 2021, “Smt. Bhagwati Pandey vs. Smt. Janki Joshi and Another”, as expeditiously as possible, as per law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

5.

The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.