Har Karan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others

Har Karan Singh and Others vs State of U. P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 13, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484522

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/484522
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: A. K. Yog, J.
Decided On: Sep 13, 2000
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 232 of 1998
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil- adjournment - Article 226 of Constitution of India - standing counsel requesting further extension of time for filling counter-affidavit - no reasons given for not filing affidavit in time - adjournment of proceedings has to be for some specific reason and not as matter of routine - extension of time not gran...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Har Karan Singh and Others

Advocate V. K. Goel, Adv.

Respondent

State of U. P. and Others

Advocate S. C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Rajni Vali
Reported In: 2000(4)AWC3192; (2001)1UPLBEC84

Excerpt

civil- adjournment - article 226 of constitution of india - standing counsel requesting further extension of time for filling counter-affidavit - no reasons given for not filing affidavit in time - adjournment of proceedings has to be for some specific reason and not as matter of routine - extension of time not granted-petition allowed. - a. k. yog, j.1. learned standing counsel states that counter-affidavit has not been filed and further time be granted. no reason disclosed. time and again, this court has made it clear that adjournment cannot be granted on mere asking and in routine manner. the tendency to assume that case shall be adjourned even on the excuse of drop of hat must be checked. request for granting time is rejected.2. the controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this court in radhey mohan pandey and others v. state of u. p. and others, 1991 (18) alr 302, and in chandigarh administration v. smt. rajni vali, jt (2000) 1 sc 159 (paras 6 to 10).3. petition is allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the aforesaid judgment of this court.

Full Judgment

A. K. Yog, J.

1. Learned standing counsel states that counter-affidavit has not been filed and further time be granted. No reason disclosed. Time and again, this Court has made it clear that adjournment cannot be granted on mere asking and in routine manner. The tendency to assume that case shall be adjourned even on the excuse of drop of hat must be checked. Request for granting time is rejected.

2. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Radhey Mohan Pandey and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (18) ALR 302, and in Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Rajni Vali, JT (2000) 1 SC 159 (Paras 6 to 10).

3. Petition is allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2000 Same Parties Har Karan Singh and Others vs State of U. P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge A. K. Yog, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Service