Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26156 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2242 of 2025 Petitioner :- Alok Mitra And Another Respondent :- Smt. Chandra Lekha Singh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Saksena Counsel for Respondent :- Sudeep Kumar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondent no. 1, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 3. The counsel for the petitioner does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 05.04.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC challenging an order dated 15.02.2023 was allowed. 5. The facts in brief are that the petitioner along with another plaintiff preferred a suit for injunction, which was registered as Suit No. 421 of 2016. In the said suit, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs to the suit were in possession of the property in question by virtue of an unregistered Will executed in their favour by the original owner namely Smt. Putraji. In paragraph 7 of the the plaint, it was stated that on the property in question, one firm namely "Pariwar Sweets & Restaurant" was opened and it was stated that a license was issued in the name & style of "Panna Agro Industries". Subsequently, it appears that the suit in question was amended and a decree for declaration of the sale deed dated 17.07.2019 executed in favour of the respondent to be declared as void was also sought. The said suit was filed in the year 2016 and a exparte injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 12.08.2016. Subsequently, the original defendant to the suit had filed the written submission, claiming that the Will claimed by the plaintiff was forged and fabricated. It also bears from the record that on 17.07.2019, the defendant to the suit sold the land in question to Smt. Chitra Lekha Singh-opposite party no. 1 in the present writ petition and as a result thereof, she was impleaded as a party to the suit. On 20.10.2022, Smt. Chandra Lekha Singh filed a written statement, in which, it was claimed that the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff was a fabricated document and also claimed that the defendant was in possession of the property in question by virtue of the sale deed executed in her favour on 17.07.2019. 6. Learned lower Court once again heard the matter and confirmed the injunction order vide order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure No. 9). The said order was challenged in the Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43. The appellate Court by means of the impugned order has set aside the order dated 15.02.2023. While doing so, the appellate Court recorded that the relationship of the plaintiff to the suit and also appreciated the Commissioner's report in paragraph no. 35, however while allowing the appeal, the appellate Court was impressed with the fact that no document was filed in the form of revenue documents (Khasra/Khatauni) to demonstrate that the property in question was recorded as an agricultural property. The appellate Court also recorded that to mislead the Court, the plaintiff no. 1 was impleaded in the suit. The appellate Court also recorded that the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to prima facie case was not properly dealt with. 7. Considering the nature of the appellate order passed as well as the injunction order granted, prima facie, there is nothing recorded in the appellate order to demonstrate that the claim of the petitioners-plaintiff that they were in possession was disbelieveable nor was there any consideration with regard to the fact that apart from the claim of the respondent that they had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and their names were also duly mutated, no document could be demonstrated to prove the actual physical possession of the respondent in the property in question. Prima facie, the appellate order has not dealt with the findings as recorded by the Civil Court, as such, the matter requires interference finding that the appellate Court has failed to record any finding with regard to the averment contained in the plaint and demonstrated by the Commissioner's report to be incorrect in regard to the possession, the appellate order cannot be justified and is set aside. As the suit is of the year 2016, directions are issued for deciding the Suit No. 421 of 2016 within a period of one year without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the party. In case, any adjournment is granted, a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) shall be imposed for every adjournment sought and granted by the Court. Till the disposal of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession and title over the property in question. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench