Dismissed¶23

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and 11 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025A227/5708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; interim injunction / status quo order in Regular Suit no.39 of 2020 (Pratapgarh); amendment of interim order by trial court making status quo operative till disposal of suit while Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeal pending; preservation of property pending framing of issues and adjudication; reliance by first appellate court on Dalpat Kumar and Ors vs Prahlad Singh and Ors (1992) 1 SCC 719; alleged interference with peaceful possession of grove land; dismissal of the Article 227 petition.

What did the court decide?

Since there was no interim order or stay of the proceedings before the trial court, mere amendment making the injunction/status quo order operative till the disposal of the suit does not amount to any amendment of, or infringement upon, the rights of the parties. ¶19

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs Ram Dular Singh and 11 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to amend the injunction/status quo order making it operative till disposal of the suit while the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) was pending before the first appellate court (as urged, the amendment being contended bad in law) +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

With the issues yet to be framed and the rights of the parties yet to be adjudicated, preserving the property by the order of status quo cannot be said to be dehors the principle of law or to amount to exceeding the jurisdiction vested.

¶22

Key takeaways

The direction to the parties to maintain status quo, i.e., preservation of the property pending trial, was a sound exercise of jurisdiction by the first appellate court, which declined to interfere (noting its reliance on Dalpat Kumar and Ors vs Prahlad Singh and Ors, (1992) 1 SCC 719).ratio¶21
There is no material irregularity in the order passed by the first appellate court and no merit in the petition.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5708 of 2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) — Shiv Kumar Singh v. Ram Dular Singh & 11 others — decided September 22, 2025 — Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. The trial court in Regular Suit no.39 of 2020 had ordered the parties to maintain status quo (order dated 13.10.2022); while Misc. Civil Appeal no.16 of 2018 arising under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was pending, the trial court amended its order making the injunction/status quo operative till disposal of the suit; the Additional District Judge, Court No.1 Pratapgarh dismissed the appeal on 19.07.2024, affirming the status quo order. Held: as there was no interim order or stay of the proceedings before the trial court, the mere amendment making the order operative till disposal of the suit did not infringe the parties' rights; since the issues were yet unframed and the parties' rights yet to be adjudicated, preserving the property by status quo was neither dehors the principle of law nor in excess of jurisdiction; the first appellate court's stance was a sound exercise of jurisdiction (with reliance placed by it on Dalpat Kumar and Ors vs Prahlad Singh and Ors, (1992) 1 SCC 719); no material irregularity was found and the petition was dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5708 of 2025

Shiv Kumar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Ram Dular Singh And 11 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rama Shankar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Under challenge is the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.1 Pratapgarh in Misc. Civil Appeal no.16 of 2018 which arises under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Regular Suit no.39 of 2020 whereby the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo which has been affirmed by the first appellate court.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a suit seeking injunction wherein considering the rival contentions the trial court had granted an ad interim injunction order. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal no.16 of 2018 which also came to be dismissed on 19.07.2024.

¶14

It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the said appeal was pending, the trial court had amended the earlier order and made the injunction/status quo order operative till the disposal of the suit.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that once the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) was pending before the first appellate court, it did not confer any jurisdiction on the trial court to have amended the order and, thus, the order is bad in the eyes of law. Moreover, taking benefit of the said order of status quo, the private respondent are interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner relating to the fraud which is alleged to be his

¶16

A227 No. 5708 of 2025

¶17

¶18

grove land.

¶19

It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no interim order or stay of the proceedings before the trial court, thus, for the said reason mere amendment making the order operative till the disposal of the suit does not amount to any amendment or infringement to the rights of the parties.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record.

¶21

Apparently, the appellate court has noticed that the parties are yet to go to trial. Looking to the contentions of the rival parties, the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo i.e. say that the property was preserved and this was in sound exercise of jurisdiction by the first appellate court and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dalpat Kumar and Ors vs Prahlad Singh and Ors; (1992) 1 SCC 719, the first appellate court declined to interfere.

¶22

This Court further notices that yet the issues have not been framed and the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. In such circumstances, preserving the property by the order of status quo cannot be said to be dehors the principle of law or it amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction vested.

¶23

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any material irregularity while passing the order by the first appellate court, accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

September 22, 2025 Harshita

¶26

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

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sabhajeet Singh and Another Vs National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director and Others

Dr. Vikram Mehta Vs Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Malihibad Lko. and Another

Ram Niwas Patel S/O Faujdar Chaudhary Vs Bhandari Lal Chaudhary S/O Faujdar Chaudhary and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Singh vs Ram Dular Singh and 11 Others

Ashok Kumar vs Civil Judge J.D. Haweli Ayodhya and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Pandey @ Shiv Kumar and 3 Others vs Laxmi Dutt Pandey and 2 Others