Disposed¶18

Mohd. Islam Khan and 5 Others v. Mohd. Amanullah Khan and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025A227/7081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; M.A. No. 7081 of 2025; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; direction for expeditious disposal; temporary injunction ex-parte order dated 18.05.2024; vacation application Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed 10.09.2025; Civil Judge (SD) Ambedkar Nagar; fix dates at short intervals; no unnecessary adjournments; petition disposed of on 09.12.2025; Lal Bahadur Khan counsel for petitioners; no counsel named for respondents; no monetary amount involved; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar to decide the petitioners-defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party and by fixing dates at short intervals. ¶18

Mohd. Islam Khan and 5 Others vs Mohd. Amanullah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar for expeditious disposal of the temporary-injunction application of the plaintiff-respondents and of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants.

¶2

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Court observed that the petitioners were not aggrieved by the ex-parte temporary injunction/status-quo order dated 18.05.2024, as shown by their failure to seek its vacation when filing written statements, and that they had themselves not pressed the trial court for expedited disposal (their 20.09.2025 short-date request having been rejected on cause-list grounds).obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Matters Under Article 227 No. 7081 of 2025 (decided 09.12.2025, Subhash Vidyarthi, J.). The petitioners-defendants sought a direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar for expeditious disposal of the plaintiff-respondents' temporary-injunction application and of their own application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. An ex-parte temporary injunction order had been passed on 18.05.2024; written statements were filed on 31.05.2024, but the vacation application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was moved only on 10.09.2025, and a 20.09.2025 request for a short date was rejected on cause-list grounds. Noting that the petitioners appeared not aggrieved by the injunction order and had not earlier pressed the trial court for early disposal, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar to decide the Order 39 Rule 4 CPC application expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments and by fixing dates at short intervals. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7081 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Islam Khan And 5 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mohd. Amanullah Khan And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Bahadur Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Lal Bahadur Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have sought issuance of a direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar nagar for expeditious disposal of the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents as well as for expeditious disposal of application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the petitionersdefendants.

¶13

The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents and on 18.05.2024, learned Civil Judge (S.D.) passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction and issued notices to the defendants-petitioners. The defendants appeared and filed written statements in the suit on 31.05.2024. However, the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the temporary injunction order dated 18.05.2024 was filed only on 10.09.2025.

¶14

It appears that the petitioners were not aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2024 directing the parties to maintain status-quo and that is why even while filing the written statements, they did not file an application for vacation of temporary injunction order. The petitioners have filed the application for vacation of the temporary injunction merely on 10.09.2025 and an application for direction for early disposal of the said application has been filed on 06.12.2025. The order-sheet of the trial Court reveals that the petitioner has not filed any application before the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. On 20.09.2025, the petitioner gave an application for fixing a short date for early disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC which was rejected considering the cause list of the Court.

¶15

The petitioner has stated in the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC that in the garb of the temporary injunction order, the plaintiff is creating hindrance in construction activity of the petitioner over his own land of which is not the subject matter of the suit.

¶16

A227 No. 7081 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed off by issuing a direction to the Civil Judge (SD), Ambedkar Nagar to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals.

¶19

December 9, 2025

¶20

-Amit K-

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶22

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

Mohd. Islam Khan and 5 Others v. Mohd. Amanullah Khan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Islam Khan and 5 Others v. Mohd. Amanullah Khan and Another

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

Adarsha Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 11 Others

Smt. Princy Pandey and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Fourth Faizabad / Ayodhya and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amar Deep @ Amar Jeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Islam Khan and 5 Others Vs Mohd. Amanullah Khan and Another

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.