State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha (Sanskrit Shiksha Lko. and 3 Others vs Yogeshwar Rishikul Bal Ved Vidyapeeth Thru. Secy. and 3 Others

Sri Pritish Kumar learned Additional Advocate General for the State appellant assisted by Sri Vikram Soni learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Prashant Chandra learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshuman Singh learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

The instant appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malihabad, Lucknow in Regular Suit no.737 of 2025 whereby in a suit preferred by the private respondents and on an application moved therein under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC an order of status quo has been passed by the trial court on 22.05.2025.

¶13

Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has vehemently submitted that the order granting status quo is per se bad in the eyes of law.

¶14

It is urged that the trial court has merely reproduced the pleadings and the contention of the parties and has not applied its judicial mind while passing the order of status quo in as much as the three golden ingredients for grant of an injunction has not been taken note of. It is urged that the trial court has perhaps being strayed only by the consideration of prima facie case but nevertheless there is no clear finding regarding the balance of convenience and irreparable injury and for the said reason the order is bad.

¶15

It is further urged that the suit of the private respondents itself was not

¶16

FAFO No. 348 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

maintainable in as much as the respondents had filed a suit assailing the notification dated 04.03.2025 passed by the State which the trial court is not competent to quash or declare it null and void. It is also submitted that the secondary relief of injunction is interconnected to the first relief and where the suit itself is not maintainable, the trial court would not have jurisdiction to grant any interim order including an order of status quo and, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the order is bad.

¶19

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Prashant Chandra while defending the order has pointed out that the relief of injunction is an independent relief and is not dependent on the primary relief of declaration.

¶20

It is further urged that it is not disputed that the private respondents are in possession of the premises in question, it is also not disputed that till date apart from the order dated 04.03.2025 which has been assailed no proceedings for actually evicting the respondents from the property in question by adopting due process of law has been initiated. It has also been pointed out that a matter relating to the property in question had been made the subject matter of a Special Appeal bearing no.29 of 2023 which was connected with two Public Interest Litigation nos.9322 of 2021 and 575 of 2022 and a Division Bench of this Court by means of its judgment dated 19.12.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.10 would reflect that the Special Appeal no.29 of 2023 was allowed as it related to grant of an NOC for certain educational purposes whereas the public interest litigations were dismissed leaving it open to be considered in proceedings to be initiated by the State. It is urged that the State had assailed the order which was passed in the Special Appeal only to that extent before the Apex Court and on 21.04.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.10260 of 2025 the Apex Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo and further directed the High Court not to proceed with the contempt proceedings.

¶21

It is urged that in the aforesaid backdrop where contentious questions are yet to be adjudicated in trial, directing the parties to maintain status quo does not violate any of the ingredients as required to be considered while passing an order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

¶22

Matter requires consideration.

¶23

It will be open for the respondents to file their counter affidavit within two

¶24

FAFO No. 348 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

weeks with an advance copy to the appellant who if may so choose may file their rejoinder affidavit within ten days, thereafter.

¶27

Liberty is granted to both the parties that in case if there is any variation in the order passed by the Apex Court the same shall same shall also be brought on record and its effect will be considered.

¶28

List this matter on 13.10.2025.

¶29

September 4, 2025 Harshita

¶30

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶31

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha (Sanskrit Shiksha Lko. and 3 Others v. Yogeshwar Rishikul Bal Ved Vidyapeeth Thru. Secy. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha (Sanskrit Shiksha Lko. and 3 Others v. Yogeshwar Rishikul Bal Ved Vidyapeeth Thru. Secy. and 3 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

Smt. Komal Sharma vs Sri. Vishwadeep Shukla

Shiv Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs Udal Singh and 3 Others

Priya singh vs Rishabh Vijay singh

Hanuman Prasad and 4 Others vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Manager and 2 Others

Smt. Madhurani and Another vs Ram Sagar and 6 Others

Punit Kumar Shukla and 4 Others vs Goklendra Bahadur Singh and 19 Others