High CourtsSingle Bench

Shanti Devi And Others vs Aalendra Singh

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 12 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 UK CK 1308

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petiton No. 579 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 · 257 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tehri Garhwal to decide the Original Civil Suit No.29 of 2024, “Shri Aalendra Singh vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and Another” pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal expeditiously and within a stipulated time period of six months.

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

(iii) Cost of petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2.

Heard Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the said original suit, filed for perpetual injunction, the petitioners are defendants. The age of the petitioner no.1 – defendant no.1 is around 72 years and the age of the petitioner no.2-defendant no.2 is around 80 years and they wish for the disposal of the said case within their lifetime.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the Original Suit No.29 of 2024 expeditiously, as per law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

5.

The 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.