Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12064 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2171 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kedari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, District Magistrate to take appropriate action on the representation dated 10.1.2025 filed by the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply order dated 10.1.2020 passed by Upziladhikari Padarauna and District Kushinagar on stay application in computerized case No. T20200544010091, under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Kedari Vs. Chandrawati and others) regarding Mauza Sekhui, Tappa Navgawa, Tehsil Padarauna District Kushinagar forthwith." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for partition. He further submitted that in the aforementioned partition suit, interim injunction for maintaining status quo has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer on 10.1.2020 which is still in operation. He further submitted that contesting respondents (defendants of the suit) are raising construction over the roadside plot, as such, petitioner has approached the authorities to restrain the respondents/ defendants from raising construction over the roadside plot. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued directing the respondent no.2, District Magistrate to take appropriate action on the application of the petitioner and direction be issued that respondents should comply the order dated 10.1.2020 passed by the Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State respondents and counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required as the suit for partition filed by petitioner is pending before respondent no.3 and interim injunction for maintaining status quo is in operation. They further submitted that petitioner can avail proper remedy for disobedience of the injunction order if any rather writ petition before this Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that partition suit filed by petitioner is pending before respondent no.3 and interim injunction for maintaining status quo is operating. 7. In view of the grant of interim injunction by Trial Court, writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner for mandamus cannot be entertained. The District Magistrate has no authority to consider the application of the petitioner as the suit is pending before the Trial Court (Sub Divisional Officer Padrauna District Kushinagar) who is competent to consider the petitioner's application, if any, in accordance with provisions contained under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the rules framed thereunder. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.3, Upziladhikari, Tehsil Padrauna District Kushinagar to decide the aforementioned suit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad