Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39553 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6179 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Akhtar Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate Nanpara Distt. Bahraich And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naqibullah Khan,Ambrish Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Barkha Kumari,Syed Ahmad Jamal Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Syed Ahmad Jamal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents had instituted a suit in the Civil Court being O.S. No.202 of 2021 in which an interim order came to be passed on 28.10.2024 by which the respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff to the suit. 3. It is argued by the petitioner who is the defendent to the said suit that after the injunction was granted, an application was moved by the plaintiff alleging that despite there being an interim order, respondents were interfering in the possession and thus, suitable directions be passed for protecting the possession of the plaintiff. It is argued that in pursuance to the application filed, a copy whereof was also given to the SDM, the State Authorities have put their lock on the factory premises which is subject matter of the suit and thus, it is argued that the SDM has no jurisdiction to take possession of the property during the pendency of the suit. 4. On the said allegation, instructions were called. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions, which are taken on record, to say that no locks have been put by the State Authorities as alleged and there is an inter se dispute in between the plaintiff and the defendant - the parties who are present here. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that an application for vacation of the stay has been moved and is pending consideration before the Court concerned. 7. Considering the submission of learned of learned Standing Counsel that no locks have been put by the State Authorities, the fact with regard to the actual possession would be taken care of while deciding the injunction application filed by the plaintiff to which objections have been filed by the defendant to the suit, as such, present petition is disposed off with direction to the Court concerned to decide the injunction application after considering the objections filed by the defendant to the suit within a period of one week from today positively. 8. Both the parties shall cooperate and shall not seek any adjournment in the disposal of the injunction application. 9. While doing so, the Court concerned shall pass specific orders with regard to the prima-facie case of possession by the plaintiff and the defendant who claim their individual possession over the property in question. 10. It is clarified that the SDM concerned will abide by the orders passed by the Court concerned in case approached by any of the authorities. 11. It is further clarified that the SDM will not interfere with the property except as directed by the competent authority. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench