Allahabad High Court
/11907/2025 of SMT. RAJESHWARI MEENU SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. DISTT. MAGISTRATE RAEBARELI AND 6 OTHERS on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11907 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner s and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11907 of 2025
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Shri Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner s and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastav, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank of Baroda.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of recovery citations dated 20.08.2025, 26.05.2025 and 18.07.2025.
3. Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have filed a Regular Suit No.464 of 2025 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.10, Raebareli with the same purpose. He has said that when the petitioners are already availing the remedy of regular suit challenging the recovery proceedings, the writ petition filed for the same purpose is not maintainable.
4. In response to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the suit was filed, the personal land of the petitioners had not been attached and this petition has been filed after attachment of the personal land of the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shishir Pradhan, Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Srivastava Smt. Rajeshwari Meenu Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. When the recovery is under challenge in a suit filed by petitioners, in case any subsequent development gives rise to some fresh or additional grievance of the petitioners, it will always be open to the petitioners to amend the suit so as to include the prayer for redressal of additional or new grievance also but filing of a writ petition during pendency of civil suit is not justified.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the civil court concerned itself. December 9, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 11907 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench