Rajiv Kanaujiya Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Rajiv Kanaujiya Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted on the petition; petitioner left free to press the pending application seeking interim protection before the revisional court, which shall be decided expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should entertain the Article 227 petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Small Cause Court, Lucknow in the execution proceedings and restraint on coercive action pursuant to them. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned orders are not without jurisdiction, having been passed in the Small Cause Court, Lucknow, in SCC Execution case No.-29/2019.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned orders are not in violation of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in SCC Suit No. 93 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Garg versus Rajiv alias Rajiv Kanaujiya).

Key takeaways

The petitioner had already approached the revisional authority/court by filing revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Act, 1887 (SCC Revision No. 74 of 2019) against the judgment dated 14.05.2019, where his interim-protection application remains pending.ratio¶22
Applying the settled principle that a petition moved only for seeking interim protection is not maintainable, the Court took the view that the instant petition had been filed only for seeking interim protection.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7 (Saurabh Lavania, J.), Matters Under Article 227 No. 1431 of 2026, decided April 2, 2026 — Dismissed. Petitioner (judgment-debtor, Rajiv Kanaujiya Chaudhary) sought quashing of execution-court orders dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Small Cause Court, Lucknow in SCC Execution case No.-29/2019 and Miscellaneous Civil case No.-22/2023, arising out of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 in SCC Suit No. 93 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Garg vs Rajiv alias Rajiv Kanaujiya), together with restraint on coercive action. The Court declined to entertain the petition because (i) the impugned orders were not without jurisdiction; (ii) they were not in violation of the 14.05.2019 judgment; (iii) the petitioner had already filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Act, 1887 (SCC Revision No. 74 of 2019) against that judgment, where his application for interim protection is pending; and (iv) applying the settled principle that a petition filed only for seeking interim protection is not maintainable, the Court found the instant petition to be of that character. Liberty was left to the petitioner to press the pending interim-protection application before the revisional court, to be decided expeditiously.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1431 of 2026

Rajiv Kanaujiya Chaudhary

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitin Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for the State and perused the records.

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

" I . To issue a suitable direction /order to quash the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Small Cause Court Lucknow in Miscelleneous Civil case No.-22/2023, in the case of Rajiν @ Rajiv Kanaujiya vs Pramod Kumar Garg contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition.

II . To issue a suitable direction /order to quash the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Small Cause Court Lucknow in SCC Execution case No.-29/2019, in the case of Pramod Kumar Garg Vs Rajiv @ Rajiv Kanaujiya as contained in Annexure No-2 to this petition.

III . To issue suitable direction or order thereby directing the opposite party not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 in S.C.C. Execution No. 29/2924 conta in annexure no.2 tο this petition."

The order(s) in issue have been passed by the Execution Court.

Upon due consideration of the facts as indicated by Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, based upon the pleadings and documents on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for the relief(s) sought, quoted above. It is for the following reason(s):-

(i) The impugned orders are not without jurisdiction, as the same have been passed in the Small Cause Court, Lucknow, in SCC Execution case No.-29/2019

(ii) The impugned orders are not in violation of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in SCC Suit No. 93 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Garg Vs Rajiv alias Rajiv Kanaujiya).

A227 No. 1431 of 2026

2

(iii) Challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in SCC Case No. 93 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Garg Vs Rajiv alias Rajiv Kanaujiya), the petitioner has already approached the revisional authority/court by means of filing revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Act, 1887 ( in short 'Act of 1887') bearing SCC Revision No. 74 of 2019 (Rajiv alias Rajiv Kanaujiya Versus Pramod Kumar Garg).

(iv) The petitioner has also preferred an application seeking interim protection, which is pending consideration before the revisional court.

This Court also considered the settled principle that the petition only for the purposes of seeking interim protection is not maintainable and to the view of this Court the instant petition has been filed only for seeking interim protection.

For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed , leaving it open to the petitioner to press the pending application seeking interim protection which shall be decided expeditiously.

April 2, 2026

Jyoti/-

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

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