Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47239 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4858 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manju Devi And Another Respondent :- Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Hawali Distt. Lko. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap Singh,Maneesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Gupta,Smt. Ruchi Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Ruchi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on caveat. Under challenge is the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow, whereby upon the objections filed by the defendant in the suit, the Court has exercised its power under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and has recalled the grant of ad-interim injunction order dated 09.05.2025. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners, the trial Court by means of the order dated 09.05.2025 had passed an ad-interim injunction order. Thereafter, the Courts were closed on 10th May, 2025; 11th May, 2025; 12th May, 2025 and 13th May, 2025. The petitioners received a copy of the order passed by the Court on 14.05.2025 and thereafter on 15.05.2025, he made the compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and as such it cannot be said that the compliance was not made within the time and in this way, the trial Court patently erred in discharging the injunction order. It is further submitted that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to not extend the ad-interim order for the reason that the said injunction order dated 09.05.2025 was not time bound and thus, at best, it was open for the trial Court to reject the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC which has not been done and in the aforesaid circumstances, the instant petition has been filed assailing the impugned order which is in excess of jurisdiction vested in the trial Court. Ms. Ruchi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, on the other hand, has raised an objection that since the application for interim injunction has been rejected, consequently, the petitioners have an adequate statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. Thus, for the said reason, the instant petition is not maintainable. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, it may be relevant to notice that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is completely misconceived. Apparently, the order impugned has been passed by the trial Court in exercise of its power under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC whereby it has powers to discharge, vary or modify an order or set aside the same for non-compliance. It, however, does not vest powers in the Court to reject the application under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC for non-compliance. From a perusal of the order dated 31.07.2025, it is clear that the trial Court has merely discharged the earlier order granted ad- interim injunction and fixed the matter for consideration of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC afresh and since there is no rejection of the said application, apparently, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has no relevance or significance, accordingly, it is turned down. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners insofar as the issue in question is concerned, it may be noticed that against an order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners did have a remedy of filing a revision under Section 115 CPC. Having not exercised that option, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and from a perusal of the material on record, there is a clear indication by the Court concerned noticing that ad-interim injunction was granted on 09.05.2025 whereas the compliance of the Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was made on 15.05.2025 which was beyond the time prescribed in law. Be that as it may, it has also been indicated that no application was moved by the petitioners before the Court to seek extension of time for complying with the aforesaid conditions. In this view of the matter, where certain findings have been recorded, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is loath to intervene or substitute to its finding with the findings recorded by the trial Court which are pure findings of fact and could not be demonstrated to be bad. Moreover, the petitioners have adequate remedy of arguing their application afresh for which the date is fixed on 08.08.2025, but it has been informed that for some reason, the matter could not be taken up and is now listed on 18.08.2025. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, however, a direction is issued to the Court concerned that on the next date fixed i.e. 18.08.2025, it shall hear the parties on the application for interim injunction afresh and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting an unnecessary adjournment and if not possible to hear on the said date then within two weeks thereafter. Since, the respondent No.5 herein has already put in appearance, the respondents are also directed to cooperate in early hearing. In case, if the cooperation is not solicited by either of the parties, it shall not prevent the Court from passing order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench