Krishna Kumar Singh vs Raj Kumar

Learned counsel for the appellant orally submits that due to inadvertent mistake, the case number of the order dated October 9, 2024 has not been mentioned in the prayer clause and he seeks permission to amend the same.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to do so during course of the day.

¶13

Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶14

This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the orders dated October 17, 2025 and October 9, 2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Raebareli in Original Suit No.24 of 2020 and Original Suit No.41 of 2020, respectively.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had taken a plot of land under an unregistered lease deed dated August 10, 2009 executed between the appellant and father of the respondent namely Ram Pratap Singh, along with possession for the purpose of constructing a brick kiln for a period of five years at the rate of Rs.35,000 per year, which was to be

¶16

FAFO No. 453 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

increased to Rs.40,000 per year thereafter. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, the appellant constructed a brick kiln on the plot in question.

¶19

The father of the respondent died on March 15, 2019. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for ejectment and possession, registered as Case No. 1 of 2020, in which the appellant filed a written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent instituted a fresh suit for permanent injunction, being Original Suit No. 24 of 2020, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant filed written statement in the said suit as well, wherein the maintainability of the suit was challenged.

¶20

A commission report was filed before the Civil Court on February 27, 2024, confirming the establishment of the brick kiln and the possession of the appellant. On October 24, 2024, an interim injunction order was passed on the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was subsequently affirmed on October 17, 2025. The said orders are under challenge in the present appeal.

¶21

Shri Anurag Shukla, learned Senior Advocate submits that a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor was filed ignoring the fact that in the plaint itself, there was no whisper that the plaintiff is in possession over the property in question. He further submits that earlier suit as well as commission report shows that the respondent was not in possession and in case the impugned order is not stayed, the appellant will suffer great and irreparable loss.

¶22

He further submits that the terms of the lease were for setting up a brick kiln on the said land and that the lease would continue until the agreed amount is received and the business of the brick kiln comes to an end. He also submits that the appellant had applied for the requisite licences and that all such licences are valid till 2029. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramji Rai and another v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through LRs. and another ; (2007) 14 SCC 200 , Dalpat

¶23

FAFO No. 453 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh and others ; (1992) 1 SCC 719 and Amar Singh v. Union of India & others ; (2011) 7 SCC 69 .

¶26

Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the matter is heard on merits today. He further submits that the lease given to the appellant has come to an end in 2024 and thereafter the same was neither renewed nor the appellant is paying any rent. After expiry of the lease, the appellant did not vacate the property and neither paid rent so that the respondent has no option. but to institute a suit.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the business operated by the appellant is contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Brick Kilns (Siting Criteria for Establishment) Rules, 2012. He also submits that after expiry of the lease, the appellant has no right to continue unless and until a fresh lease is executed. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgement passed by this Court in the matter of M/s J.P. Brick Field Situted Rae Breli Through Its Prop. v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Rai Bareli and Another ; F.A.F.O. No.208 of 2010 and M/s J.P. Brick Field, Shahjadpur, Raebareli Thru Pr v. Smt. Munni Devi Maurya w/o Churau Maurya & Others ; Civil Revision No.85 of 2010.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

It is evident that the instant appeal is filed against the interim injunction orders dated October 17, 2025 and October 9, 2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Raebareli in Original Suit No.24 of 2020 and Original Suit No.41 of 2020, respectively and the suits are still pending.

¶30

In view of the above, without going into merits of the case, the impugned orders October 17, 2025 and October 9, 2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Raebareli in Original Suit No.24 of 2020 and Original Suit No.41 of 2020, respectively are set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of the aforesaid suits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible to say within a period of one year from today.

¶31

FAFO No. 453 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33