Sandhya Singh v. Arun Kumar Saxena
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
Judgment
Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Arun Kumar Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhiraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, PC Act, Court No.6, Lucknow dismissing the Execution Case No.365 of 2015.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised two-fold preliminary objections, first that the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 were not parties to the Execution Case and, therefore, they could not be impleaded as opposite parties to the present petition. Secondly, the petitioner can challenged the impugned order by filing a civil revision under Section 15 of CPC.
Confronted with the aforesaid preliminary objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present petition and he seeks liberty to file revision.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
Let the certified copies filed along with this petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining their photocopies on record. January 21, 2026 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 15.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.