Disposed¶17

Manjnu v. Ram Dulare and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026A227/231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 25), Amitabh Kumar Rai, J., January 21, 2026; Matters Under Article 227 No. 231 of 2026; Manjnu vs. Ram Dulare and 5 others; challenge to appellate judgment dated 24.12.2025 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019 setting aside status quo order dated 13.11.2017 passed under Order 39 Rule 1/Section 151 CPC in O.S. No. 135 of 2013 (Barabanki); Amin Commissioner report dated 11.02.2013; notice issued to respondents 1-6; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Notice ordered to be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 6, returnable at an early date; steps to be taken within a week; matter to be listed after service of notice. No merits adjudicated at this stage. ¶17

Manjnu vs Ram Dulare and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 231 of 2026

¶3

Manjnu

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Dulare And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Gopal Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 25

¶10

HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The instant application has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019, Ramdulare and Others Vs. Manjnu.

¶13

It has been submitted that the petitioner has filed Original Suit No. 135 of 2013, Manjnu Vs. Ramdulare and Others in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 22, Barabanki in which application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 under Section 151 CPC was allowed vide order dated 13.11.2017 to the extent that the learned trial Court passed an order for maintaining status quo with respect to the suit property.

¶14

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2017 filed Civil Appeal No. 35/2019 which was allowed by the judgement and order dated 24.12.2025 and the order of status quo passed on the application of Order 39 Rule 1 dated 13.11.2017 was set aside. It has been submitted that in the Amin Commissioner report dated 11.02.2013 it has been shown that the petitioner's house is in the south of the disputed property whereas on the north is the aabadi land and on the eastern and western side there is pathway. It has been submitted that the order of the trial Court of status quo is to protect the property during pendency of the suit and as such the order of interim injunction dated 13.11.2017 was wrongly set aside by the appellate Court.

¶15

A227 No. 231 of 2026

¶16

¶17