Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24254 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2416 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pandey Respondent :- Tirath Prasad Kesarwani and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Anamika Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paritosh Shukla with Ms. Anamika Singh who appears for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 16.04.2025 whereby the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 was allowed. 3. The facts as emerged are that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property in question by virtue of a lease deed executed in his favour, instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering from his property being Suit No.30 of 2023 (Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs. Teerath Prasad and others). The opposite parties claim the ownership of the same property by virtue of a sale deed executed in their favour. They filed objections to the injunction application and after hearing the parties, an injunction was granted vide order dated 31.05.2023. Challenging the said order, Misc. Appeal No.41 of 2023 was filed in which, the appeal came to be allowed mainly on the ground that the number of property shown in the plaint is 133 whereas in paper no.11-Ga, the property is shown as 123. It was further observed that the map shown in the plaint was different from the Commissioner's report in respect of one of the shop being M-1 which belongs to one Sakatthu. Thus, mainly on these two grounds, the appeal came to be allowed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the document numbered as 11-Ga which records the property number as 133 and not 123. With regard to the construction of the shop owned by one Sakatthu, it is stated that there is no dispute at the instance of the petitioner with regard to the said shop and in any case, objection to the Commissioner Report has already been filed. 5. Considering the fact that both the parties are claiming the ownership of the same property by virtue of lease deed and a sale deed respectively, the trial court was right in granting the injunction. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2023, the present petition is disposed off directing the trial court to endevour to decide the suit expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. 6. Till the disposal of the suit, the parties shall maintain status- quo with regard to the title and possession of the property. 7. The petition stands disposed off. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench