Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 120831 (ALL)

NAROTTAM SINGH AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

A227/482/2025 · 2025-02-06

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7620 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 482 of 2025 Petitioner :- Narottam Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra,Upendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 as well as the short rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the said short counter affidavit is taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2025, whereby the interim application filed before the appellate court in a miscellaneous appeal was rejected. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction. In terms of the prayer made in the suit for removal of alleged unauthorized constructions from the defendants, an injunction application was also filed. The trial court by means of the order dated 18.12.2024 rejected the interim application mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs themselves had admitted that they were not in possession and the suit was filed for mandatory injunction. Challenging the said order dated 18.12.2024, an appeal was preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. In the said appeal also, an injunction application was filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners argues that as the defendants were raising constructions, the plaintiffs had rightly sought for restriction from raising constructions. 5. The copy of the plaint as well as the injunction application on record does not indicate any prayer made before the trial court restricting the defendant from raising any construction, as such, no relief could have been granted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 or under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and thus, there is no infirmity with the order impugned requiring interference by this Court. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench