HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 837 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.1 and Shri Mohan Singh for respondent no.17. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a suit of partition was filed under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 by the respondent no.2 against other co-sharers and in the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 03.06.2016 and subsequently an exparte Kurra was prepared on 21.06.2016 and the same approved on 06.07.2016. 4. Against the order dated 6.07.2016 the husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioners no. 2 to 6, namely, Sri Janki Prasad along with 2 others preferred a revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 on 04.08.2017 before the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was allowed on 23.01.2023 and after setting aside the order dated 06.07.2016 the matter was remanded to the trial court for deciding afresh. Against the remand order a writ was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed on 12.02.2025 on the ground of alternate remedy. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Smt. Rituwari And Others .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. It is only after disposal of the writ petition a revision has been preferred before the Board of Revenue, on which an ad-interim injunction has been passed on 1.4.2025, which has been assailed by the petitioners in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that while passing ad-interim injunction dated 1.4.2025 the next date was fixed 15.5.2025 and now the case will be listed on 12.01.2026. 6. It has been submitted that without condoning the delay the ad-interim injunction has been passed, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is noticed that the said order was passed on 1.4.2025 about six months prior and in the writ petition it is averred that as to whether the petitioners have been served with the notice of Board of Revenue or that they are participating with the proceedings. 7. Be that as it may suffice to say that accordingly interest of justice be served in case the petitioners are granted an opportunity to move an application for vacation of interim order, which may be decided by the Board of Revenue with expedition, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to move an application for vacation of interim order dated 1.4.2025 within next two weeks, after service the copy on the private respondents. The Board of Revenue shall fix a date within a period of three weeks, thereafter and hear the petitioners on the application for vacation of the interim order and pass appropriate order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the private respondents and dispose of the application, in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 837 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench