Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36685-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6175 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra,Shailesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State – respondents. In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is co- owner and in possession of land and recorded bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No.470 M, area 0.0080 hectare as well as Gata No.471 M, area 0.0850 hectare, situated at village – Dhanuhi, pargana – Gwarich, Tehsil – Colonelganj, District – Gonda and the allegation made in the present petition is that private respondents no.6 to 11 who are also co-sharer, are interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances has filed Civil Suit bearing O.S. No.56/2025 [Satya Narayan vs. Mathura Prasad and Others] in the Court of Gram Nyayalaya, Colonelganj, District Gonda for permanent injunction along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction. By means of order dated 20.5.2025 Gram Nyayalaya has also passed an order of status quo on the application of petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and the grievance raised in the present petition is that private respondents in collusion with the police authorities are raising construction in gross violation of order of status quo dated 20.5.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner has approached the Court of competent jurisdiction with regard to the grievance raised by him and the matter is pending, then even if there are allegations of violation of the order of interim injunction, the trial court is fully empowered to consider and decide the same in light of the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. Even otherwise allegation pertaining to violation of order of status quo require determination of fact which cannot be done in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to ordinary civil remedy of application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC and the civil court after going through the material on record is fully empowered to pass appropriate orders which has been prayed by the petitioner on such application. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.6.2025 mks (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench