Smt. Kamla Singh and Another vs Shiv Nath and 7 Others

Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, SriVijay Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the caveator/opposite party no.4 and perused the records.

¶13

This is an application for amendment of petition seeking addition of some opposite parties who are parties to the suit but which were left out from being impleaded in the petition.

¶14

Since the parties sought to be impleaded to the petition are already parties to the suit, they are necessary parties and their impleadment is necessary in the interest of justice.

¶15

Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to incorporate necessary amendment in the memo of petition forthwith.

¶16

Order on memo of petition:

¶17

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 31.05.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.36, Lucknow in Original Suit No.398 of 2008:

¶18

A227 No. 6115 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

Shivnath and others Vs. Ranjeet Singh, whereby an application (C228) filed by the plaintiffs for being provided police assistance for enforcement of the interim order dated 15.04.2008, has been allowed and the plaintiffs had sought police assistance for completing the construction of semi-constructed house on the property in dispute. This application has been allowed by the impugned order.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit was originally filed against the sole defendant namely Ranjeet Singh and an ex-parte order of temporary injunction was passed against the aforesaid sole defendant on 15.04.2008. Subsequently, the petitioners were also impleaded as the defendants to the suit on 11.05.2010.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the temporary injunction order was passed in the year 2008 on the basis of pleadings contained in the plaint against the sole defendant who was party to the suit at that point of time. Merely because subsequently the petitioners have also been impleaded in the suit, the temporary injunction order passed against sole original defendant Ranjeet Singh would not automatically become applicable upon the petitioners also.

¶23

The opposite party no.4 has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit, which have been taken on record.

¶24

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has submitted that the petitioners have already filed an application dated 18.09.2025 under Section 151 C.P.C. for recall of order dated 31.05.2025. He has submitted that as the petitioners have already availed their remedy by filing an application under Section 151 C.P.C. the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

¶25

The application for recall of order dated 31.05.2025 has been filed invoking inherent powers of the trial court which has passed

¶26

A227 No. 6115 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 and the remedy has not been availed before any superior court moreover although the petitioners have sought invocation of inherent powers of civil court by filing an application under Section 151 C.P.C. the fact that no order has been passed on that application till date in spite of expiry of a period of one month indicates that the remedy is not efficacious. Keeping an application for recall of order undisposed when the order has directed for providing police assistance to enable a party to the suit to raise further constructions, cannot be appreciated as such an application needs to be decided with all possible expedition.

¶29

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶30

Issue notice to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and 5 to 15, returnable at an early date.

¶31

Steps for service of notice shall be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners within next three working days.

¶32

The opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. In case counter affidavit is filed rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶33

List this case in the week commencing 08.12.2025.

¶34

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as recorded above, it is provided that operation and implementation of impugned order dated 31.05.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court no.36, Lucknow in Original Suit No.398 of 2008 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing.

¶35

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶36

October 17, 2025 Ram.

¶37

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

Smt. Kamla Singh and Another v. Shiv Nath and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Singh and Another v. Shiv Nath and 7 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

Rakesh Kumar @ Rajan Mishra vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi Camp at Unnao and Others

Ram Sunder vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Baburam vs Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan New Delhi and 5 Others

Manohar and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Gudda vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Ayush Mishra Thru. His Natural Guardian/ Father Namely, Manik Lal Mishra vs Naib Tehsildar, Amaniganj, Tehsil Milkipur, Mandal, Ayodhya and Others