Disposed

Rashida Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/2287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an ex-parte injunction granted in a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, alleging concealment of a parallel civil suit whose injunction application was dismissed as not pressed. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, noting the petitioner had not appeared before the Revenue Court, and directed it to decide objections and the interim injunction expe

What the court decided

AI extract

Rashida Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20908

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2287 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rashida Bano And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Ram Asarey Verma

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2-Gaon Sabha. Sri Ram Asarey Verma, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondents no. 4 and 5.

¶8

The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the grant of ex-parte order of injunction dated 16.01.2024 passed in a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending before the respondent no. 3.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that previously the private respondent had instituted a suit for injunction before the Civil Court registered as Suit No. 185 of 2023. In the said suit, the petitioner had sought an injunction which was initially granted ex-parte, however, by means of order dated 05.02.2024, the application for injunction was dismissed as the private respondent did not press the same and thereafter the matter is now listed before the Civil Court for framing of issues.

¶10

The emphasis laid by learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the said civil suit is pending, the private respondent also filed a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 seeking declaration of his rights before the respondent no. 3 wherein on 16.01.2024, the Court has granted an ex-parte injunction directing the parties to maintain status-quo.

¶11

It is urged that the subsequent suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein the injunction order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner is mired with concealment, inasmuch as, while filing the suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the private respondents

¶12

failed to indicate that they had preferred a civil suit wherein the application for injunction was rejected as not pressed.

¶13

It is also stated that the private respondents have adopted sharp tactics, inasmuch as, for the same cause of action they have approached two different forums and once they were unable to get relief from one, they filed the other suit before the Revenue Court without disclosing the correct facts and mislaid the Revenue Court in granting an interim order. It is thus stated that the subsequent order dated 16.01.2024 is bad and deserves to be set aside.

¶14

The learned counsel for the Caveator-private respondents Sri Verma submits that the petitioner has yet not approached the court concerned nor any objections have been filed and in so far as the concealment is concerned, it is stated that it is not so, inasmuch as, there are two different suits before two different forums and the proposition which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in any case have no applicability, coupled with the fact that it should be the court of first instance which should consider and decide the same and in the aforesaid circumstances the order impugned is purely interlocutory in nature, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

The Court has considered the rival submissions and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that apparently there are two separate suits which are pending between the parties, one before the Civil Court and the other before the Revenue Court. The scope of the two suits appears to be different, inasmuch as, in the Civil Court, the decree of injunction has been sought whereas in the Revenue Court it is a suit for declaration of rights relating to an agricultural property.

¶16

It is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that he has yet not put in appearance in the revenue court and neither any objections have been filed.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage, inasmuch as, the petitioner has ample opportunity of filing his objections and raise all his objections before the respondent no. 3 and in case if such objections are filed by the petitioners within a period of ten days from today, the court concerned shall consider and decide the application for interim injunction expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties preferably within a period of six weeks from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the court concerned.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the rival contentions on merit and it shall be open for the parties to raise all pleas before the court concerned and the court concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Asheesh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rashida Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rashida Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Divyanshu Misra Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Hari Prasad Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Harun Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 23, Sultanpur and 4 Others

Ayub Khan and Others U/a 227 Vs 2ND A.D.J. Kheri and Others

Ram Ji and 5 Others Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Phool Chandra and Another Vs Civil Judge J.D Sadar Distt. Pratapgarh and Another