HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11974 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for following relief : "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the District Judge Varanasi/appellate court to issue injunction order in regarding 1/5 share of petitioner of plot No.608Ka area 0.0930 hectare situated at Village Naipura Kala, Teshil Sadar, District Varanasi restraining the respondents from forcefully occupying the plot in question, from raising any construction on the plot in question and further not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioner, which is subject matter of misc. appeal No.160 of 2025 title as Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs. Maya Devi and others pending in the court of District Judge Varanasi. And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, otherwise plaintiff/petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit filed by the petitioner, an ex parte interim injunction was granted by the trial court on 23.10.2024, which was ultimately vacated by order dated 06.08.2025, after hearing both the parties. Against the order dated 06.08.2025, petitioner preferred a misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r ) CPC. The said appeal has been admitted but application for interim relief filed along with the appeal has been deferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited reported in 1982 (3) SCC page No. 484 and in view of judgment in case of Maheshwar Pratap Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ B No. 412 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are raising constructions over the land in dispute and the interim order is urgently required. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar, Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Suresh Chandra Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Smt. Manju Devi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. In view of these facts, since the interim application filed in appeal is already pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. 6. The lower appellate court i.e. District Judge, Varanasi is directed to consider and decide the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in appeal, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after ensuring service and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided there is no other legal impediment. 7. Till disposal of the application for interim relief, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits. It is further clarified that petitioner, who is the appellant will cooperate in the early disposal of the application for interim relief and will not seek undue adjournment. In case, an effort is made by the petitioner/appellant to linger on the proceedings, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically come to an end. September 26, 2025 Priya A227 No. 11974 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad