Disposed

Neeraj Shukla v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2026WRIC/35797/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declined to direct the police authorities to intervene in a civil dispute involving alleged dispossession in violation of a temporary injunction. It held that the beneficiary of the injunction should file a miscellaneous application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, after which the trial court should conduct a spot survey through an Amin Commissioner and decide the application expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue that remedy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty was granted to move an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A in the pending suit. If filed, the Trial Court was directed to conduct a survey of the spot within four weeks and decide the application preferably within a further two months.

Neeraj Shukla Vs State of Up and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 35797 of 2026

Neeraj Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the police authorities, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, to take cognizance of the representation made by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶13

It transpires from the representation dated 11.07.2026 that the petitioner has already instituted a suit being O.S. No. 1108 of 2025 for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No. 6, and despite an order of temporary injunction having been passed in his favour on 26.04.2025, whereby an order of status quo was passed, he has nevertheless been dispossessed.

¶14

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, though the defendantrespondents have also instituted a suit bearing No. 1108 of 2025, no temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents. It is thus sought to be contended that the defendant-respondents in the suit could not have dispossessed the petitioner.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records, in our considered view, where there is a violation of an order of temporary injunction, the only remedy available to the

¶16

WRIC No. 35797 of 2026

¶17

¶18

petitioner/plaintiff, who is the beneficiary of the temporary injunction, is to file a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶19

We have perused the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner and find that it contains an order for maintaining status quo with regard to the factual state of affairs existing at the spot. Therefore, the same can be determined only on the basis of the report of an Amin Commissioner, if appointed upon an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶20

In the circumstances, we decline to grant any indulgence in the matter where the petitioner seeks a direction to the Police Commissioner to look into the grievance raised by him in his representation.

¶21

However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the pending suit. In the event any such application is filed, the concerned Trial Court shall cause a survey of the spot in question to be conducted within four weeks and thereafter proceed to decide the Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a further period of two months.

¶22

We may clarify that, while the private parties are litigating the matter before the civil court and a serious civil dispute is pending between them, neither the police administration, nor the revenue authorities are expected to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties, except where the circumstances so warrant for the maintenance of law and order.

¶23

10, Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

¶25

September 16, 2026 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Shukla v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Shukla v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases