Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49501 Court No. - 17 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 334 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Madhu Sinha Respondent :- Mrs. Radhika Gupta And 16 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nirmit Srivastava,Aakchad Nath,Sudeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Shri Nirmit Srivastava and Shri Aakchad Nath, Advocates and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 assisted by Shri Manav Rathaur, Advocate. The present first appeal from order has been filed with following main prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao in Civil Suit No. 607 of 2025 In: re Madhu Sinha V.S. Radhika Gupta & others, and allow the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 bearing paper no. 5-ga dated 23.06.2025, thereby restraining the respondent no. 1 and 2, their men, agents, representatives and all those acting on its behalf from raising any construction over the disputed property and interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant and thereby from changing its nature of the property and to maintain status quo over the property in question, in any manner whatsoever, till the pendency of the Civil Suit, in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the instant matter may be finally decided at the admission stage itself and there is no need for issuing notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 17 as at present, the property, which is subject matter of the suit filed by the appellant is purchased by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, hence, the issuance of notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 17 is hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has preferred a Regular Suit No. 607 of 2025 for declaration, permanent injunction and preferential rights in which, the temporary injunction application of the appellant has been rejected by the Court concerned mainly on the ground that appellant has failed to show the prima-facie case in her favour that she has some right in the property, which is subject matter of the suit. It is further submitted that a suit for partition filed by one Shri Roopam Chaudhary in which the predecessors of the respondent nos. 15 to 17 were also the party i.e. between the brothers and the widow of the deceased brothers. In the said suit, a compromise has been entered into between the parties on 05/07.08.1996 and in pursuance thereof, a preliminary decree was prepared on 26.09.1996. The appellant, who is the daughter of Shri Rajendra Shankar Chaudhary, defendant no. 1 of the original partition suit filed in the year 1993, has a right in the property as a coparcener as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act after the amendment made in the year 2005. It is further submitted that after passing of the preliminary decree, no final decree has been passed till date hence, she moved an application under Order 26 Rule 13 and 14 in the Partition Suit No. 433 of 1993 as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Others Vs. Charulata Sahu and Others; (2023) 9 SCC 641. On the other hand, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that they are the last persons, who purchased the property from the respondent nos. 3 to 6, who were the first purchasers of the property from the original owner of the property and has submitted that the preliminary decree has been passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties wherein the partition has been made in metes and bounds, so there is no requirement of any final decree and the preliminary decree would be treated as final decree. At this stage, Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have jointly submitted that the present first appeal from order may be decided finally at this stage with a direction to the concerned Court to decide the Regular Suit No. 607 of 2025 filed by the appellant within a period of one year and till then, the property in question shall not be alienated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are at present owner of the property after purchasing it from the respondent nos. 3 to 6. As such, the present first appeal from order is finally disposed of and it is expected that the learned court concerned shall make the endeavour to decide the Regular Suit No. 607 of 2025 expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if there is no other legal impediment, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and if any adjournment is unavoidable, only short date may be fixed and till the disposal of the suit. As the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has made a statement that the properties in question may not be alienated, hence, it is directed that the respondents shall not alienate the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, till the disposal of the Regular Suit No. 607 of 2025. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Ashish FAFO No. 334 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench