Geeta Devi vs Mangal Prasad and 14 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1881 of 2026

Geeta Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Mangal Prasad And 14 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Ramu Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Raman Mishra

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed a supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶10

This Court on 13.04.2026 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶11

"Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who has made a mention that there is an urgent petition filed and which may be taken up today itself as the respondents are raising constructions.

¶12

The Court had permitted. The aforesaid matter is taken up. At the time, when the matter was called out, Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel has put in appearance on caveat on behalf of the respondent no.1 and has pointed out that the private respondents no.11 and 12 have died.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted some time to correct the array of the parties and update his instructions.

¶14

List this matter on 15th of April, 2026, as fresh.

¶15

It will be open for the respondents also to update his instructions. "

¶16

Today, it has been informed that as far as the respondent no. 11 is concerned, though, he is dead but his legal heirs are already on record as respondent nos. 4 and 10.

¶17

A227 No. 1881 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

It is further stated that it has incorrectly been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent no. 12 is dead rather she is alive.

¶20

Under challenge is the order dated 30.03.2026 whereby the District Judge, Shrawasti in an appeal preferred by the private respondent no. 1 bearing No. 32 of 2025, however, while allowing the appeal has set aside the order dated 19.09.2025 and 22.08.2025, it directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 20th April, 2026 for further proceedings.

¶21

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner inter-alia had instituted a suit for injunction before the Civil Judge at Shrawasti along with the suit, she had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.

¶22

The Trial Court by means of order dated 22.08.2025 granted an ex-parte injunction order and also directed the petitioner to make compliance of the order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the compliance was made on 25.08.2025. It is stated that though the injunction order was passed on 22.08.2025 at about 02:00PM, however, that was followed by a 4th Saturday and a Sunday on which date the courts were closed, hence, on the next working day, i.e. 25.08.2025, the compliance was made.

¶24

It is further stated that upon service, the private respondents had put in appearance and raised objections, however, the Trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 directed the petitioner to take fresh steps again.

¶25

It is this order dated 19.09.2025 and the initial order of grant of ex-parte injunction dated 22.08.2025 that was assailed by the private respondents by filing a misc. appeal registered as Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2025 and the appeal has been allowed by the District Judge, Shrawasti.

¶26

The submission is that the petitioner could not be put to fault as after the grant of injunction on 22.08.2025, the Court was closed on 23/24.08.2025, hence, on the next working day, the compliance was made and this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Appellate Court.

¶27

A227 No. 1881 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

It is urged that even otherwise no prejudice has been caused to the respondent as he has already put in appearance and filed his objections. Other than that the respondents are carrying out the constructions and unless the same is protected and prohibited, the entire nature of the property would change causing irreparable injury. In such circumstances, the order passed by the District Judge concerned dated 30th March, 2026 is bad in the eyes of law.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the order and even otherwise, the matter is listed before the Trial Court on 20th April, 2026 on which date the petitioner can make his submissions on the application and the same can be decided afresh.

¶31

The Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶32

Apparently, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 was considered by this Court in the case of Upendra Nath Srivastava v. Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act and ors: 2024 SCC OnLine All 8936 and this Court had also noticed the Apex Court's decision in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 and the relevant portion of Upendra Nath (Supra) reads as under:-

¶33

" 11. It is no doubt that a Court is vested with the power to grant an ex parte injunction order in a befitting case. The scheme of Order 39 is such that primarily as far as possible the application must be heard bi parte and for which notices to the defendants have to be issued in terms of Rule 3. However, in cases, where the Court is of the opinion that unless an ex parte interim order is granted the basic purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated hence, as exception, the trial court can grant an ex parte injunction and in such circumstances, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. assumes significance.

¶34

12. From the perusal of the provisions which have been reproduced hereinabove, it would indicate that a party in whose favour an ex parte injunction is granted must comply with the provisions that is to say that by the next day, the compliance affidavit has to be filed before the Court

¶35

A227 No. 1881 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

indicating that the copy of the plaint, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and affidavit in its support and the documents upon which the plaintiff has relied have been sent to the defendant. The consequence of non-compliance would be that as the injunction granted ex parte being subject to the aforesaid condition, hence, unless and until the compliance is made, the ex parte injunction order cannot be subsist or be extended"

¶38

From the perusal of the aforesaid extracts, it would reveal that once an exparte injunction is granted, it is the duty of the plaintiff to scrupulously comply with the order Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. In the instant case it is not disputed that the compliance was made on 25.08.2025 i.e. after three days. Such compliance cannot be treated as faithful compliance of the aforesaid provisions.

¶39

It is also to be noticed that in case if the compliance is not made, its outcome is automatic and the injunction order apparently stands discharged. The Trial Court committed an error in directing the plaintiff to take fresh steps. There was no issue of taking fresh steps, when the defendant had already appeared.

¶40

The fact remains that once the injunction was granted ex-parte subject to the aforesaid condition and the said condition was not fulfilled, the injunction order could not subsist. Neither the fault can be rectified by directing the parties to take fresh steps. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal preferred by the private respondents cannot be faulted.The District Judge has rightly held that there is no provision for directing the parties to take fresh steps. Merely by ordering fresh steps, the initial defect of non-compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C, cannot be cured.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances , the District Judge has rightly directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court.

¶42

In the given circumstances, this Court finds that there is no palpable error in the order impugned. Since the date is already fixed on 20th April, 2026, the Court directs that the Trial Court shall after hearing the parties pass fresh orders on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. on the

¶43

A227 No. 1881 of 2026

¶44

5

¶45

date fixed and in case if the same is not possible then within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶46

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the either of the petitioner on merits and the Trial Court shall pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law.

¶47

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶48

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶49

April 15, 2026

¶50

Asheesh

¶51

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

Geeta Devi v. Mangal Prasad and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi v. Mangal Prasad and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Ashok Kumar Trivedi vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Rajat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 17 Others

Pradeeep Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghupati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others