Dismissed¶29

Kamlesh Singh and Another v. Surendra Kumar Singh and 11 Others

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2026A227/2014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition dismissed; concurrent rejection of interim injunction (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) upheld where plaintiff failed to establish prima facie right and possession and boundaries claimed did not match the sale deed; admission-stage status quo order held subject to subsequent objections under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC; Commissioner's report noted; both parties claiming possession; Ambedkar Nagar; Regular Suit No.15 of 2021; Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.15 of 2024; Jaspreet Singh, J.; decision dated April 29, 2026.

What did the court decide?

An interim order/findings recorded by the trial court while considering admission of the suit is always subject to the pleadings and objections filed subsequently once the defendants put in appearance. ¶22

Kamlesh Singh and Another vs Surendra Kumar Singh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the application for interim injunction after hearing the respondents, when the trial court had considered the prima facie case and granted the injunction (status quo) at the admission stage. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Even before this Court there is no clear material by which the boundaries of the disputed property as claimed by the petitioners could be clearly identified.

¶28

Key takeaways

There is no material brought on record to indicate that prima facie the petitioners have possession over the disputed land.ratio¶28
Where both parties are claiming rights over the property and possession is disputed, the trial court and the first appellate court considered the material and recorded findings which do not palpably appear to be erroneous; the Court was therefore not inclined to entertain the petition.ratio¶29
Since the matter is pending before the trial court, the parties are expected to co-operate so that the suit is decided at an early date.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Arts. 227 — interim injunction in suit for permanent injunction — status quo order dated 02.02.2021 was passed at the admission stage and any finding recorded then is always subject to the pleadings and objections filed after the defendants put in appearance — after the defendants claimed right and possession and moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the injunction application was rejected on 19.07.2024, the trial court finding that the boundaries indicated by the plaintiff-petitioners did not match those in the sale deed and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie right and possession — first appellate court affirmed (order dated 06.02.2026) — before the High Court there was no clear material identifying the boundaries claimed by the petitioners and no material indicating prima facie possession — with both parties claiming rights and possession disputed, the concurrent findings did not palpably appear erroneous — petition dismissed with the expectation that the parties co-operate and the pending suit be decided at an early date. (Jaspreet Singh, J.)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2014 of 2026

¶3

Kamlesh Singh And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Surendra Kumar Singh And 11 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

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

¶12

Under challenge is the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.15 of 2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed affirming the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar in Regular Suit No.15 of 2021, as a consequence, the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

¶13

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had preferred a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction with the averments that the property in dispute belonged to the petitioners which was purchased by his father. It was stated that the defendants who have a contagious property yet had bad intention of invading the rights of the petitioners, hence to avoid any disturbance from the defendants the suit for injunction was filed.

¶14

It is also stated that upon institution of the suit, the trial court by means of order dated 02.02.2021 had granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. However, after notice, the defendants of the suit had put in appearance and after moving an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC the application for injunction came to be dismissed by means of order dated 19.07.2024. This order was assailed by the petitioners by

¶15

A227 No. 2014 of 2026

¶16

¶17

filing an appeal which too came to be dismissed on 06.02.2026 where after the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶18

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court had considered, prima facie case and granted the injunction to the petitioners, hence it was not justified to reject the application after hearing the respondents.

¶19

It is also urged that the trial court as well as the first appellate court has committed an error in recording tentative finding that the boundaries of the disputed property does not match. It is also urged that the Commissioner Report has also not been taken into consideration which clearly indicated the rights of the plaintiff-petitioners as well as the fact that the boundaries as indicates in the sale deed which was filed by the plaintiff, being his document of title and the boundaries as indicated by the Commissioner alongwith his report were identical. Thus, the finding that the property as claimed by the plaintiffs do not match with the boundaries is patently erroneous.

¶20

It is also urged that the Commissioner had recorded in his report that both the parties were claiming possession over the property and in such circumstances it was incumbent upon the Court to have preserved the property by directing the parties to maintain status quo, which was initially done by the trial court and later dismissed the application and the appeal too on the grounds which are not in sound exercise of jurisdiction and in such circumstances, the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶22

Apparently, what is not disputed is the fact that the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the trial court was an order which was passed by the trial court while considering the admission of the suit. Any finding recorded at that point of time is always subject to the pleading and objections filed subsequently once the defendants put in appearance.

¶23

The record also indicates that the defendants after putting in appearance had filed his objections claiming right and possession over the

¶24

A227 No. 2014 of 2026

¶25

¶26

property. It is at that stage that the trial court after hearing the parties and considering the material on record found that the boundaries as indicated by the plaintiff petitioners did not match with the boundaries as recorded in the sale deed.

¶27

It was also noticed by the trial court that unless and until parties lead their evidence to establish their respective cases by leading evidence and furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish his, prima facie , right over the property as well as possession, hence rejected the application for injunction and these findings have been affirmed by the first appellate court.

¶28

Even before this Court, there is no clear material by which it can be said that the boundaries as claimed by the petitioners relating to the property in question could be clearly identified. There is no material brought on record to indicate that prima facie the petitioners have possession over the said land.

¶29

Apparently, in such a situation where both the parties are claiming rights over the property and the possession is also disputed, the trial court as well as the first appellate court has considered the material and recorded findings which do not palpably appear to be erroneous. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and the petition is dismissed . However, since the matter is pending before the trial court, it is expected that the parties shall co-operate and the suit be decided at an early date.

¶30

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶31

April 29, 2026

¶32

ank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamlesh Singh and Another v. Surendra Kumar Singh and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Singh and Another v. Surendra Kumar Singh and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sashastra Seema Bal Thru. Its Commandant 4TH Battalian Lko. vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate / Collector Lko. and 5 Others

Bachai Miyan @ Shahabuddin vs Makkhan and Another

Sashatra Seema Bal, Thru. Its Commandant, Lko. vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Mmagistrate / Collector Lko. and 4 Others

Santosh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 7 Others

Nilam Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Mayawati vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others