Disposed¶23

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another v. Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2025A227/6294/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition disposed of without adverting to merits; injunction application (6-Ga) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC undecided despite arguments; Regular Suit No. 2160 of 2025 (Rayeesh Bano v. Ranjeeta Singh & others); Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malihabad, Lucknow; Order 39 Rule 4 CPC order dated 04.11.2025; hearing 24.10.2025; liberty to challenge order dated 04.11.2025; judge Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi; decision date 11.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to take legal recourse in the manner prescribed under law against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, if they so desire; the writ petition was disposed of without adverting to its merits. ¶23

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs Civil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition (Matters under Article 227 No. 6294 of 2025) should be kept pending, given that the injunction application (6-Ga) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Regular Suit No. 2160 of 2025 had already been finally decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow vide order dated 04.11.2025.

¶22

Court's answer

Having found that the injunction application (6-Ga) had already been finally decided vide the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad's order dated 04.11.2025, this Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Without adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioners to take legal recourse in the manner prescribed under law against the order dated 04.11.2025, if they so desire.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 20), Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. — Matters Under Article 227 No. 6294 of 2025, decided 11.11.2025. Petitioners had raised the non-decision of their injunction application (6-Ga) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Regular Suit No. 2160 of 2025 (Rayeesh Bano v. Ranjeeta Singh & others) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, which was fixed for disposal on 17.10.2025 but remained undecided despite completed arguments. On inquiry ordered on 07.11.2025, and upon instructions dated 10.11.2025 with the order and proceedings produced on 11.11.2025, it transpired that the Civil Judge had already finally decided the application vide an Order 39 Rule 4 CPC order dated 04.11.2025 (hearing on 24.10.2025; orders fixed for 04.11.2025). Finding no useful purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, the Court disposed of it on 11.11.2025 without adverting to the merits, granting the petitioners liberty to take legal recourse as prescribed under law against the order dated 04.11.2025 if they so desired.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6294 of 2025

¶3

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. And 8 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Gupta, Smt. Ruchi Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jai Prakash Awasthi, Vashu Deo Mishra

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Gupta along with Mrs. Ruchi Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vasu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶12

This Court on 07.11.2025 passed the following order:

¶13

"1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vasu Deo Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

¶14

2. This Court directed the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow to seek specific instructions as to why the application (6-Ga) filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, which was fixed for disposal on 17.10.2025, has not yet been decided.

¶15

3. Ms. Kavya Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the basis of instructions dated 07.11.2025 received from the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, has informed the Court that aforesaid application filed in the Regular Suit No. 2160 of 2025 (Rayeesh Bano Versus Ranjeeta Singh & others) has already been decided on 04.11.2025.

¶16

4. It would not be out of context to note here that in the earlier session of the proceeding today, both the contesting parties very categorically made statement before this Court that no order on the the aforesaid application (6-Ga) has been passed on the same despite the arguments on behalf of the parties have already been completed.

¶17

A227 No. 6294 of 2025

¶18

¶19

5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation that on the one hand, it has been stated that the application (6-Ga) is pending for orders and on the other hand, it has been informed that it was decided way back on 04.11.2025. This Court is of the opinion that it would be apt to direct the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to produce the copy of the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2025 before this Court on the next date along-with the details of the proceedings.

¶20

6. Put up this case in the list of fresh cases on 11.11.2025."

¶21

Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2025, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Court on the basis of instructions dated 10.11.2025 received by him from the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, apprised this Court that the order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was passed on 04.11.2025. He produced the copy of the said order for the perusal of the Court. Sri Jain has also produced the copy of the proceedings of the case showing that the matter was heard on 24.10.2025 whereby 04.11.2025 was fixed for orders. The copy of aforesaid instructions is taken on record.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court finds that when the injunction application (6-Ga) has already been finally decided vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending.

¶23

Accordingly, without adverting on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to take legal recourse in the manner as prescribed under law against the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2025, if they so desire.

¶24

November 11, 2025 Arun

¶25

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶26

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

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another v. Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another v. Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. and 8 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 Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar Vs District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

Smt. Vinti Pandey vs Dhananjay Tiwari

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Smt. Rajkumari Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Court No. 10 Raebareli and 6 Others

New Adil Educational Society Thru. Manager Musahib Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 7 Others