Petitioner sought interim protection in a suit for permanent injunction after rejection of temporary injunction by courts below; status quo was ordered on notice. The petition was disposed of directing the trial court to decide Original Suit No. 102 of 2019 within six months, with parties maintaining status quo till disposal.
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. - 2024:AHC:156337
Court No. - 51
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2045 of 2024
Petitioner :- Anwar Ahmad Respondent :- Chandra Prakash And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Saxena
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
"It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2005 from Malkit Singh who had in turn purchased it from Ram Bharose Lal, son of Sukh Lal vide sale deed dated 23.05.1980. Ram Bharose Lal had been granted an awasiya patta on 11.06.1974 and his right subsequently enlarged into a bhumidhari.
The suit was instituted seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and associates form interfering with the plaintiffpetitioner's peaceful possession in the suit property denoted by the letter ???? in the map attached to the plaint and bounded at the foot of it. The application for temporary injunction in like terms made by the plaintiffpetitioner was rejected by the Trial Court and the plaintiff's appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.
It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court has gone by the fact that there are some orders passed by the Revenue Court against the plaintiff-petitioner's predecessor evicting them under Section 122B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which have been upheld, and therefore, the sale deed executed in the plaintiffpetitioner's favour would be of no avail.
These are matters which would require scrutiny during trial and what is required to be seen at the stage of consideration of the temporary injunction matter is a prima facie case; it does not involve establishment of prima facie title. The Courts below prima facie have held proceedings almost as elaborate as a trial which cannot be done at this stage. The petitioner states that he in possession on the basis of a registered sale deed in his favour.
Issue notice returnable on 22.03.2024.
Steps be taken by R.P.A.D. within a week.
List for admission on 22.03.2024 along with a report regarding service and the postal track attached.
Till the next date of listing, parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession nature and character of the suit property as obtains today. "
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with direction to Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bisalpur, Pilibhit to decide Original Suit No. 102 of 2019 in accordance with law, if possible within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, adjournment is granted, Court shall record reasons for adjournment.
Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Sartaj
Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct expeditious disposal of the pending suit for permanent injunction while maintaining status quo over the suit property.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anwar Ahmad
Chandra Prakash
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
