Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39206 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3976 of 2025 Petitioner :- Narottam Das Respondent :- Shyam Sunder Das And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amjad Siddiqui,Om Prakash Nag Counsel for Respondent :- Dushyant Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 17.01.2025 whereby the injunction application filed by the petitioner was rejected as well as the appellate order dated 21.04.2o025, where the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order refusing to grant injunction was also dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner instituted a suit being Suit No. 493 of 2024. In terms of the plaints filed in the said suit, the plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the property by virtue of "Mahazarnama" executed in his favour by the erstwhile owner after his death. The property which came in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said "Mahazarnama" was numbered as Property No. 24/2/85. It was alleged in the suit that the defendants to the suit were encroaching on the property and thus, an injunction was sought. The defendants put in appearance and filed a reply, wherein it was stated that the plaintiff was a licensee of the property bearing no. 24/2/85. Similarly, the defendant also claimed his ownership and right of possession over the adjacent property bearing no. 24/2/86. It was also admitted in the written statement that certain part of the property of the defendant were encroached for road widening. It was also stated that a map was duly sanctioned for raising construction by the Development authority concerned and the constructions were being raised only on the property bearing no. 24/2/86. 4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the injunction application as well as the appeal, the Courts below refused to grant injunction on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish any title over the property in question. He further argues that the suit in question was filed for protecting the possession and if it is presumed that there is no ownership right flowing in favour of the plaintiff, he was still entitled to an injunction based upon the possession as well as the admission of possession by the plaintiff over the property bearing no. 24/2/85. 5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that he is not encroaching on any part of the property bearing no. 24/2/85 and is confining his construction only over the property bearing no. 24/2/86 that in terms of the sanction granted in his favour by the Development authority concerned. 6. Considering the nature of the orders, merely because the plaintiff could not establish or proof his title, he cannot be denied injunction, which was pleaded and sought for on the basis of the possession. 7. Considering the arguments of both the parties, once there is no dispute by the defendant that they are raising construction on the property bearing no. 24/2/86 in terms of the sanction as received by the Development authority concerned, the present petition is disposed of directing that the defendant shall raise construction only on the property bearing no. 24/2/86 in accordance with the sanction granted in his favour and would not encroach any part of the property bearing no. 24/2/85 during the pendency of the suit. Both the party shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench