Subodh Shukla vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Subodh Shukla vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No writ relief on merits; petition disposed of with directions: trial court to hear and decide the temporary injunction application within one month; respondent no. 6's side to file objection to that application within fifteen days; both parties to maintain status quo over nature and possession of the suit property and not create third-party rights for two months or till disposal of the temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the notice dated 03.11.2025 should be entertained, when the relief sought would amount to permanent prohibitory injunction for which the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit in Mainpuri. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the relief sought would be in the nature of permanent prohibitory injunction and the petitioner has already instituted a suit in the District Court, Mainpuri, the petitioner should seek the appropriate remedy by filing an injunction application in that suit rather than through this writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

As both parties had appeared through counsel and undertook to pursue the civil suit remedy (including disposal of the temporary injunction application), the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards nature and possession of the suit property and restrained them from creating third-party rights in respect of the property for two months or until final disposal of the pending temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not dealt with the merits of either party's claim and had protected the property only during the pendency of the temporary injunction application, so as to avoid any worsening law and order situation.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ - C No. 39194 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 4; Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.; decided November 10, 2025): Petitioner Subodh Shukla sought quashing of a notice dated 03.11.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 and interim protection of his possession of a disputed plot, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. On perusal of the relief, the Court found it would amount to permanent prohibitory injunction, for which the petitioner had already instituted a suit (O.S. No. 541 of 2025) in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri, with a temporary injunction application already filed. The Court held that the petitioner should seek the appropriate remedy through an injunction application in that suit. Respondent no. 6's counsel undertook to file an objection to the temporary injunction application within fifteen days; the trial court was directed to decide that application within one month. As both parties undertook to pursue the civil-suit remedy, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as to nature and possession of the suit property and refrain from creating third-party rights for two months or till final disposal of the temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier. The Court clarified it had not dealt with the merits of either party's claim, protecting the property only during pendency of the injunction application to avoid a law-and-order deterioration. Petition disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 39194 of 2025

Subodh Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Man Mohan Mishra, Raghvendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 4

HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Sri Rahul Shekhar, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 6 by filing a vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

Heard Man Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed for following relief :

"1. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 03.11.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 and pass an ad-interim order to the respondents, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot in dispute and not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land till the pendency of this writ petition."

On perusal of the relief, we find that it would be in the nature of permanent prohibitory injunction for which the petitioner has already instituted a suit in the District Court, Mainpuri, in which, Amin's report has been obtained in the matter.

In our considered view, the petitioner has instituted a suit and he should seek appropriate remedy by filing injunction application.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already filed a temporary injunction application.

Sri Rahul Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that his client is not aware of the pending suit being O.S. No. 541 of 2025 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri within

WRIC No. 39194 of 2025

2

fifteen days from today and file an objection to the temporary injunction application.

The trial court concerned shall now proceed to hear and decide the temporary injunction application within a period of one month from today.

Since both the parties have put in their appearance before this Court through their counsel and are undertaking to pursue the civil suit remedy pending before the trial court especially the disposal of the temporary injunctions application, we are hereby direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the suit property and restrain them from creating any third party rights in respect of the property in question for a period of two months or till the final disposal of the pending temporary injunction application whichever is earlier.

It is made clear that we have not dealt with the merit of the claim of either of the parties and have protected the property only during pendency of the temporary injunction application, so as to avoid any law and order situation getting worse on the spot. Hence, we expect the endevour of the court to dispose of the pending temporary injunction application on merits within the time framed prescribed herein above.

This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

November 10, 2025 #Vikram/-

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad