Lalji Tiwari vs the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Shrawasti (Presided by Smt. Anupriya) and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lalji Tiwari vs the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Shrawasti (Presided by Smt. Anupriya) and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court and apply for vacation of the ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 23.01.2026, with a direction that such application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of the ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti in Civil Suit No.26 of 2026 (restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with construction by plaintiffs-respondent Nos.6 to 9) should be pressed and decided. +1 more

Court's answer

Confronted with the preliminary objections, the petitioner's counsel admitted the impleadment of opposite party Nos.1 to 5 was due to inadvertence, declined to press the petition, and sought liberty to appear before the trial Court and apply for vacation of the ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 23.01.2026; the Court accordingly dismissed the petition as not pressed with that liberty.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files an application for vacation of the ex-parte order of temporary injunction, the trial Court shall consider and decide it expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Subhash Vidyarthi, J. — WRIT - C No. 835 of 2026 (decided January 27, 2026): Lalji Tiwari challenged the ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti in Civil Suit No.26 of 2026, restraining him from interfering with constructions raised by plaintiffs-respondent Nos.6 to 9. The State raised preliminary objections of mis-joinder (State respondents not parties to the suit) and improper impleadment of the trial Court, invoking Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1992) 2 SCC 577 and jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1. Counsel conceded the impleadment was inadvertent, did not press the petition, and sought liberty to move the trial Court for vacation of the injunction. Petition dismissed as not pressed with liberty; trial Court directed to decide any vacation application expeditiously, in accordance with law, without unnecessary adjournments.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 835 of 2026

Lalji Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Court Of Civil Judge (S.D.) Shrawasti (Presided By Smt. Anupriya) And 8 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 17

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Heard Shri Sumit Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti in Civil Suit No.26 of 2026 whereby the Court had issued an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendantpetitioner from interfering in the constructions being raised by the plaintiffsrespondent Nos.6 to 9.

Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 i.e. State of U.P., Superintendent of Police Shrawasti, Circle Officer Ikauna Shrawasti and Station House Officer respectively are not parties to the suit in which the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 has been passed and, therefore, the petition suffers from the defect of mis-joinder of parties.

Further, the petitioner has impleaded the trial Court as an opposite party to the petition whereas in view of the law laid down in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur , (1992) 2 SCC 577 and jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat , (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Civil Judge ought not have been impleaded as a party to the writ petition.

Confronted with the aforesaid objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he has impleaded the aforesaid opposite parties due

WRIC No. 835 of 2026

2

to inadvertence and he states that he does not want to press the petitioner against the opposite party Nos.1 to 5.

After advancing submissions at some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the petition and seeks liberty for the petitioner to appear before the trial Court and apply for vacation of ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 23.01.2026.

The petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.

In case the petitioner files an application for vacation of the ex-parte order of temporary injunction, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

January 27, 2026 -Amit K-

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

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