Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20408 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1157 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- Bhola Rai And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Kedar Nath Mishra,Sugendra Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Notice need not to be issued to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The plaintiff before this Court had filed Original Suit No. 250 of 2024 claiming relief of permanent injunction against contesting defendant respondent nos. 1 and 2 and two other persons, Kamlesh and Jitendra, defendant respondent IInd Set. In the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved before trial court which was decided directing the plaintiff not to interfere in the possession of the respondent no. 1 & 2 in respect of Plot No. 2680 ङ. Against the order of trial court, a misc. appeal was preferred by petitioner which has been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in dispute is in joint possession of the plaintiff as well as defendant IInd Set being Plot No. 2680 क and 2680 ङ. However, no application was moved by defendant Ist Set for grant of any injunction or any counter claim was filed and trial court was not correct granting injunction in favour of defendants. According to him, pleading was there in the plaint in respect of Plot No. 2860 ङ. 4. Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for defendants Ist Set submitted that dispute is in regard to Plot No. 2680 ङ and the case of the respondents has been specifically set up by filing written statement on 29.07.2024 claiming that the property in dispute is recorded in the revenue records under category 6(2) as Abadi. 5. I have respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. From perusal of order passed by trial court deciding temporary injunction application, I find that no interference is required as the trial court has relied upon the documentary evidence submitted by both the parties as well as the report of Lekhpal, finding that the Plot No. 2680 ङ is recorded in the revenue records as Abadi and in category 6(2) in the name of the defendants Ist Set. 7. No case for interference is made out. 8. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad