Vinay Prakash Srivastava v. Raj Kumar Gupta and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2025A227/3819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:35693); MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3819 of 2025; Vinay Prakash Srivastava v. Raj Kumar Gupta & 5 others; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; decided 17.6.2025; temporary injunction application; suit for injunction; service of notice/summons on defendants; appearance of some defendants not sufficient to dispense with service; no direction for early disposal of temporary injunction application; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued; the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the trial court is expected to decide the temporary injunction application as soon as service of notice upon the defendants is sufficient. ¶¶14

Vinay Prakash Srivastava vs Raj Kumar Gupta and 5… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35693

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3819 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinay Prakash Srivastava Respondent :- Raj Kumar Gupta And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Shri Brijesh Kumar Misra, Advocate has file a vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate has filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, both of which are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction on 03.05.2025 and he has also filed an application for temporary injunction in the suit. On 12.05.2025, the trial Court has passed an order for issuance of notice to the defendants.

¶9

There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has taken steps for service of notice on all the defendants. The order sheet further reveals that the defendant No.1 has put in appearance before the trial Court on 26.05.2025 and the trial Court has recorded that notices/summons have not been served upon the remaining defendants and in these circumstances, a temporary injunction application cannot be disposed off without hearing all the defendants.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the trial Court for deciding the temporary application on the next date fixed i.e. on 01.07.2025.

¶11

A copy of the plaint has not been annexed with the petitioner and, therefore, this court cannot ascertain the prayers sought in the suit. The trial court has issued notices to the defendants and

¶12

there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has taken steps in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court. The appearance of one or some of the defendants on their own is not sufficient to dispense with service of notice upon all the defendants.

¶13

In these circumstances, no direction can be issued to the trial Court at this stage for deciding the application for temporary injunction on the next date fixed i.e. on 01.07.2025. However, the trial court is expected to proceed to decide the temporary injunction application as soon as service of notice upon the defendants is sufficient.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observation.

¶15

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 17.6.2025/-Amit K-

¶17

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

Vinay Prakash Srivastava v. Raj Kumar Gupta and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Prakash Srivastava v. Raj Kumar Gupta and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Zaid Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mohd.Islam and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. and 2 Others

Girja Shankar Constable Pno 112072041 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Vinay Prakash Srivastava Vs Raj Kumar Gupta and 5 Others

Nirmal Bahadur Singh and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Oths.

Hameeda Khatoon @ Hameeda Begam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 6 Others