Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112801 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1098 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Saroha And 6 Others Respondent :- Chandraveer Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Mishra,Manish Tandon,Saqib Meezan,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Saran,Kunal Shah Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.8.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagar Meerut in Original Suit No.583 of 2024 (Chandraveer Singh and Another vs. Kuldeep Saroha & others) filed for the relief of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from raising wall over the area marked by point 'A-D' and shall also not interfere with the plaintiffs' right of way. By the order impugned dated 22.8.2024, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagar Meerut has issued an ex parte injunction order dated 22.8.2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding point 'A-D'. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a Suit No.735 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents impleading the Secretary and President of the Resident Welfare Society restraining the Resident Society from interfering with the right of way of the plaintiffs over 40 feet road situated in khasra No.291. In the aforesaid suit, an interim injunction was granted to the plaintiffs which was challenged by the defendants in the appeal and the same was set aside and the writ petition filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was also dismissed with a detailed order. After dismissal of the writ petition, second suit was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), impleading the residents of Society virtually for the same relief in which the order has been passed. 4. This Court, by order dated 5.2.2025 has stayed further proceedings Original Suit No.583 of 2024. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. 5. Shri Manish Goel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the suits are based on different cause of action. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that at the time of sanctioning of map submitted by the Society, objections were raised by the petitioners and other persons regarding right of way before the Meerut Development Authority. The authorized Secretary of the Society submitted an affidavit before the Development Authority mentioning therein that the roads will be kept open for the public use and after the said affidavit was given, the map was sanctioned by the Development Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents could not deny the fact that in both the suits, the right of way was involved regarding the same land. 6. Be as it may, without going into the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the second suit has been filed without impleading the Society as well as the Development Authority though the rights have been claimed on the basis of certain concessions given by the Society which were accepted by the Meerut Development Authority regarding the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents. The Court below has erroneously granted the injunction, therefore, the order impugned dated 22.8.2024 is set aside. 7. It is provided that plaintiffs-respondents, if so desire, may implead Society as well as Meerut Development Authority as defendants in the suit within a week and after ensuring service of notice upon the newly impleaded defendants and other defendants, the Trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide the injunction application afresh without being prejudiced by any of the orders passed by this Court or any other Court after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties as well as giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case within next twelve weeks. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that till disposal of the injunction application, petitioners will not construct the wall over the area marked by point 'A-D' and Shri Manish Goel, assisted by Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the respondents also gave undertaking that their clients i.e. respondents will not exercise the Right of way till the application for interim injunction is being decided by the Court below. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of the parties. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad