Allowed

Pradeep Kumar and Another v. Adesh Saxena and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A227/4848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in long possession of disputed house challenged appellate order setting aside status quo. Court held they cannot be evicted without due process and quashed the appellate order, restoring status quo till disposal of original suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order quashed; status quo restored till disposal of Original Suit No. 273 of 2019.

Pradeep Kumar and Another vs Adesh Saxena and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111520

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4848 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar And Another Respondent :- Adesh Saxena And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶8

(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act-II) District Pilibhit in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 41 of 2021 Adesh Kumar and others vs. Pradeep KUmar and another.

¶9

(b) To, allow the injunction application (paper no. 6C) filed by the plaintiff petitioner and the defendants-respondents be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, earlier petitioners based upon the possessory title have filed Original Suit No. 273 of 2019 in which 6C application was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2021 directing for status quo. Against that defendantrespondents preferred Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2021, which was allowed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 16.02.2024. He next submitted that it is undisputed between the parties that petitioners are having possession over the house in dispute since long and considering this fact, the court has allowed 6C application of petitioners. He next submitted that appellate court while passing the impugned order has relied upon the sale deed dated 04.08.1926 as well as registered will deed dated 04.09.1981. He next submitted that undisputedly petitioners are in possession of the house in dispute since long and they may not be evicted without adopting due procedure of law, therefore, they are entitled for order of status quo.

¶11

Per contra, Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are only tenant and respondents have

¶12

also filed SCC Suit No. 374 of 2024 for arrears of rent and eviction, which is pending for adjudication. He next submitted that as on date petitioners are having no title paper, therefore, no order for interim injunction may be pass in their favour.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

It is undisputed that petitioners are in possession of house in dispute since long, but their title is disputed. It is also undisputed that now the defendant-respondents have also filed SCC Suit No. 374 of 2024. Therefore, even if petitioners are treated to be illegal occupants of the house in dispute, they cannot be evicted from the house in dispute without adopting due procedure of law and therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioners are entitled for order of status quo till the disposal of Original Suit No. 273 of 2019. Therefore, I found no illegality or perversity in the order dated 13.10.2021 passed in the said suit.

¶15

Accordingly, impugned appellate order dated 16.02.2024 is hereby quashed. Petition is allowed . No order as to costs.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction may be issued to Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pilibhit to decide the Original Suit No. 273 of 2019 at the earliest.

¶17

Under such facts and circumstances of the case, Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pilibhit is directed to decide Original Suit No. 273 of 2019 in accordance with law, maximum 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 and may impose cost, if required.

¶18

It is made clear that in case SCC Suit No. 374 of 2024 is allowed, this order of status quo passed in Original Suit No. 273 of 2019 shall not come in the way of execution of order passed in SCC Suit No. 374 of 2024 and court concerned may proceed in accordance with law for execution of order.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 ADY

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar and Another v. Adesh Saxena and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and Another v. Adesh Saxena and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pratap Misra and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Surya Narayan Sharma and 44 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Arjun Mishra and 2 Others vs Kuber Mishra and 3 Others

Smt. Laltesh Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others