Petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of injunction order was dismissed. Court held that interim injunction served to maintain status quo and did not adversely affect petitioners' rights pending final adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137522
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2842 of 2023
Petitioner :- Maziburrahman (Alias Mojiburrahman) And Another Respondent :- Mahfuzurrahman And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for record quash the order dated 4.2.2023 (Annexure No.13) passed by District Judge Maharajganj in Civil Misc. Appeal 2 of 2022 Computerized No. UPMH010001572022 (Smt. Farida Khatoon and another Vs. Mahfuzurrahman and another) and the order dated 9.12.2021 (Annexure No.11) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Maharajganj in Original Suit No. 983 of 2021 Computerized No.UPMH060011632021 (Mahfuzurrahman and another Vs. Smt. Farida Khatoon and another) and respondents may further be interdicted from interfering with petitioners' right of enjoyment and possession over house situated over plot no. 1755 in Mauja Dhanewa Dhanei, Maharajganj, otherwise petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and property in the circumstances of the case."
aforesaid Will, being Original Suit No.90 of 2021, which is stated to be pending. It is stated that thereafter, the plaintiffrespondent filed Suit No.983 of 2021 seeking a relief of permanent injunction on the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 04.04.2011. It is contended that a written statement was filed by the petitioners in which it was categorically stated that there was a family partition with regard to the Plot No.1755 between the three brothers, that is to say, between the petitioner no.1, and respondent nos.1 and 2 with respect to the said property. It is stated that in the family settlement, the plaintiff had given the petitioner no.1 only land and thereafter the defendant-petitioner no.1 made a house in which he carries on his business and other than that he has no source of income. It is stated that without considering the averments made in the written statement as well as in the objections filed by the petitioners, an interim injunction was passed in the aforesaid Suit No.983 of 2021 by means of the impugned order dated 09.12.2021. It is further that by another impugned order dated 04.02.2023, the Misc. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2021 filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.12.2021 has been dismissed.
the courts concerned have recorded that in view of the dispute between the parties, the same can be properly adjudicated only after evidence is recorded. After considering the opposing contention of the parties, the order for maintenance of status quo was passed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023 SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in recording their finding on the basis of affidavit only vide order dated 09.12.2021
Whether injunction order sanctioned by lower court was in the interest of parties in pending linformation
Maziburrahman (Alias Mojiburrahman) And Another
Mahfuzurrahman And Another
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
