Disposed

Bhupinder Singh v. Kamaljeet Singh

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025FAPL/196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order only. First appeal against dismissal of a civil suit; the court merely issued notice to the respondent, directed steps for service within seven working days, listed the matter for January 2026, and ordered both parties to maintain status quo as on that date regarding nature and possession of the property until the next date. No substantive adjudication or finding was made.

What did the court decide?

Status quo in respect of nature and possession of the property to be maintained by parties until next date of listing.

Bhupinder Singh vs Kamaljeet Singh — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL No. - 196 of 2025

Bhupinder Singh

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Kamaljeet Singh

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶12

By means of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment and order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 42, Lucknow in Civil Suit No. 2036 of 2022 (Bhupinder Singh Vs. Kamaljeet Singh).

¶13

Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial court without fixing any date for re-arguments or pronouncement of judgment or granting any time to the appellant, has passed the impugned order in the most hurried manner ignoring the provisions of General Rules (Civil) and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has dismissed the suit, which has been filed by the appellant, particularly, when there was no defense version against the averments made in the plaint or against the documents relied upon by the appellant.

¶14

It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial court has ignored the documentary evidences filed by the appellant as well as the statements of the witnesses and did not consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Kale versus Deputy Director Consolidation and others; reported in AIR(1976) SC 807.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in actual physical possession of the property in suit.

¶16

Matter requires consideration.

¶17

Issue notice to the respondent, returnable at an early date.

¶18

Steps for service of notice be taken within seven working days.

¶19

FAPL No. 196 of 2025

¶20

¶21

List this case in the week commencing 05.01.2026.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, status quo as on today, in respect of nature and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.

¶23

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶24

November 21, 2025

¶25

Preeti

¶26

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

Bhupinder Singh v. Kamaljeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh v. Kamaljeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Regional Manager vs Smt. Shiv Rani and Another

Shyam Kishor Rastogi vs U.O.I. Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi

Smt. Komal Sharma vs Sri. Vishwadeep Shukla

Neejam Ali and 5 Others vs Sandeep Machchhid Gayakwad and 2 Others

Nishchint Singh vs Vinod Kumar Yadav

Elegant Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Anit Sharma vs Sanjay Chibba