Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21975 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2052 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- Distt. Judge Balrampur And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Arun Kumar Yadav,Muskan Bharti,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Irfan Alam Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankit Pandey who appears for the opposite party no.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Balrampur as well as the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Civil Revision No.12 of 2024. 3. The facts, as emerged, are that a suit was filed by the respondents for mandatory injunction which was registered as Suit No.474 of 2012. Subsequently, after hearing the parties, an injunction order came to be passed whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. The said order was passed on 20.01.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to appear, as such, the suit was dismissed in default on 29.02.2016. 4. It is brought on record that an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 29.02.2016, the said case was registered as Misc. Case No.21 of 2021. Ultimately, the suit in question was restored by means of an order dated 02.01.2023. An issue arose as to whether after the restoration of the suit, the injunction which was granted in the year 2014 stood restored or not? 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that after the dismissal of the suit, sale deeds were executed by the petitioner no.3 in favour of third persons who are not party to the suit. He argues that the restoration and status-quo, as was existing on the date of the dismissal of the suit, was wholly improper inasmuch as third party rights had already been created by virtue of execution of the sale deeds. An application to that effect was filed, however, the same was dismissed placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vareed Jacob vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and others; (2004) 6 SCC 378. Challenging the order dated 09.07.2024, a revision was preferred which too has been dismissed. It is further argued that once the third party rights have been created, a specific injunction was required to be taken after the restoration of the suit by filing an appropriate application, however, the same has not been done. 6. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the order on the foundation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vareed Jacob (supra) by arguing that on the restoration of the suit, the interim orders which were subsisted, as on the date of dismissal of the suit, stood automatically revived and thus, the application filed by the petitioners was rightly rejected by both the courts. 7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie, a perusal of the suit in question reveals that the suit was filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction by the plaintiff who claimed that he was appointed the Sarvakar, the said claim was resisted by the respondents herein. The fact remains that the persons in whose favour the sale deeds have been executed after the dismissal of the suit, have not been impleaded and are not parties to the said suit, as such, even if the injunction order stands revived, in the light of the judgment in the case of Vareed Jacob (supra), the same would not be binding on the persons in whose favour, the sale deeds have been executed. This fact is clarified by means of this order. 8. The present petition is disposed off directing the trial court to endevour to decide the Suit No.474 of 2012 with all expedition preferably within a period of one year without giving any adjournments to any of the parties. The trial court shall also, while deciding the suit, decide whether the suit in present form was maintainable or not. It is further clarified that the injunction order, which stands restored, would not be applicable on the third party in whose favour the sale deeds have been executed during the pendency of the suit. It is further directed that the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of title and possession till the disposal of the suit. 9. It is made clear that this court has not made any observations on merits which shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench