Dismissed

Lakhan Lal and 3 Others v. Amrit Lal

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023A227/5845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 227, the court addressed challenges to orders maintaining status quo in a property dispute. Finding the orders justifiable based on the record, the court dismissed the petition and referred aggrieved parties to seek clarification from the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as no interference was called for with the impugned orders.

Lakhan Lal and 3 Others Vs Amrit Lal — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150266

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5845 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Lakhan Lal And 3 Others Respondent :- Amrit Lal Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Singh,Rajat Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rahul Tyagi, holding brief of Shri Rajat Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 6/Special Judge, N.D./P.S. Act Fatehpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2022, Computer case No. UPFT010024252022; Lakhan Lal and others. Vs. Amrit Lal as well as the impugned judgement and order dated 30.04.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Fatehpur, in original Suit No. 743 of 2021; Amrit Lal Vs. Lakhan Lal and others. (Annexure No. 11 and 8 of the misc. petition)."

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiff-respondent had instituted Original Suit No.743 of 2021 seeking a relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession and usage of the property in dispute. Alongwith with the aforesaid suit, an application for temporary injunction supported by an affidavit was filed and in reply thereto, the objections of the defendant-petitioners were also filed. It is stated that by means of the impugned order dated 30.04.2022, the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffrespondent was allowed and an order of status quo was passed. The appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.9 of 2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioners. The contention is that on one hand, the trial court records that the matter can be properly considered only after collection of

¶10

evidence, yet has proceeded to pass the order of status quo on the basis of its conclusions drawn on the basis of prima facie case. It is stated that no prima facie case is established in the matter inasmuch as the plaintiff-respondent did not produce any document of his title.

¶11

Having heard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears from a perusal of the record that the trial court had referred to the admission made by the defendantpetitioners in the written statement that their house had already been made in November 2021 which is shown in the site plan alongwith the application for temporary injunction paper no.7Ga-2 in yellow colour. The appellate court has also observed this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioners. It is clear that an order of status quo has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo at the spot. It appears that the only grouse of the defendant-petitioners, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the house is under construction and construction materials are present at the spot which, because of the order of status quo, cannot be removed.

¶12

The orders impugned are passed on material on record and are justifiable and reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in this petition. However, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of status quo, it is for them to seek clarification of the order of status quo from the court concerned as held by this Court in the case of Neelabh Prakashan Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1999 ACJ 644 in which this Court has observed as follows:-

¶13

"29. In this regard about ascertaining on what a status quo order of a Court may imply, the Supreme Court has also reflected on the situation in re Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. V. State of Bihar (1987 SCC (Suppl.) 394). The

¶14

Supreme Court observed that the proper course for a party would be, in case any party was in doubt, to approach the Court (as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court) to seek clarification, if the party had any doubt on the meaning and effect of the status quo."

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 SK

¶17

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakhan Lal and 3 Others v. Amrit Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Lal and 3 Others v. Amrit Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs Chhatradhari and 2 Others

Man Plus Security Vs Chairman / President, Baroda U.P. Bank, and Another

Smt. Omika Devi Vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) Branch Mohaddipur and 2 Others

Bhikhari Chauhan Vs Smt. Geeta Devi

Anil Kumar Vs Ram Mehar and 18 Others

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs Smt. Vaijaynti Devi and Another