Krishna Prakash Singh v. Addl. Dist. Judge and Session Judge Dist. Gonda and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A227/3420/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside an appellate order dismissing an appeal against an ad-interim status quo in a property suit, the High Court declined to decide the merits immediately, issued notice to parties, directed service of dasti notices, and maintained the status quo till the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Issuing notice to respondents both ways, ordering service of dasti notices, and directing parties to maintain status quo over the property.

Krishna Prakash Singh vs Addl. Dist. Judge and Session… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3420 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishna Prakash Singh Respondent :- Addl. Dist. Judge And Session Judge Dist. Gonda And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Mani Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for setting aside the appellate order dated 10.07.2024 passed by respondent no. -1 Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Room No. 3, District Gonda in Misc. Civil Appeal Case No. 9 of 2024 filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. against the ad-interim order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 11, District Gonda-respondent no. 2 in Regular Suit No. 259 of 2024 (Krishna Prakash Singh Vs. Kuttu Prasad).

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has purchased a khandar house from one Subhadra Devi by a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2002. Respondent no. 3 started interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the said land hence a suit for permanent injunction alongwith application for temporary injunction was preferred by the petitioner in which an ad-interim order of status quo was passed on 24.01.2024 and notice has been issued to the respondent no. 3 to file objection against the temporary injunction application. Against the said order the respondent no. 3 preferred a Civil Misc. Appeal which has been allowed by the respondent no. 1 on the point that the petitioner has failed to show any revenue document immediately in his favour to establish the prima-facie case in his favour though the Court itself observed in the order about the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the same Gata.

¶8

It is further submitted that once the sale deed has not been disputed by the Appellate court then on the point of non production of revenue records/documents does not take away the title of the property from the petitioner as the entry in the revenue record does not decide the title.

¶9

It is further submitted that respondent/appellant had alternative remedy to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. and the Appellate Court should have refrained itself from deciding

¶10

the case as the injunction could have been varied or discharged or set-aside by the lower Court itself and in support of his submission he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Samar Jeet Patel Vs. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Allahabad and others reported in (1998) 89 Allahabad High Court 267.

¶11

From the above mentioned submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, that revenue record does not decide the title and when Appellate Court has not doubted the sale deed then there was no occasion to pass an order allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and secondly, the alternative remedy was/is available with the appellant/respondent to move an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to the respondents both ways.

¶14

Steps be taken within a period of one week.

¶15

Office is directed to provide dasti notices to the learned counsel for the petitioner for the purposes of serving the notice upon the respondents outside the Court.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 12.08.2024.

¶17

Petitioner is directed to file affidavit of service by the next date of listing.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status-quo over the property in question.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Ashish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Prakash Singh v. Addl. Dist. Judge and Session Judge Dist. Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prakash Singh v. Addl. Dist. Judge and Session Judge Dist. Gonda and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Hamid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Ravi Bhan Shukla and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Deshraj Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Shiv Kumar and Another vs District Judge, Sultanpur and 2 Others

Hari Prasad and Another vs Ajeet Kumar and 3 Others

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others