HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5120 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, Gonda in Misc. Appeal No.12/2022 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) 2 CPC which was dismissed affirming the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.129/2018, whereby the trial Court has granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant of the suit (the petitioner herein) unlawfully dispossessing the plaintiffs (the private-respondents herein) from the property in question. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private-respondents had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction on the premise that they are the tenants in possession of the disputed property. It was also alleged that the petitioner (the defendant of the suit) attempted to unlawfully dispossess the private-respondents which prompted them to file a suit for simplicitor injunction. 4. It is urged that the suit was contested by the present petitioner and it was stated that the private-respondents were not the tenants rather they were permitted to stay in the premises as they were relatives of the petitioner and now they were attempting to usurp the property and in such circumstances neither any obligation existed in their favour which could be breached. In such circumstances, the grant of a temporary injunction is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Singh, Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) Learned Distt. Judge Gonda And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) wholly without jurisdiction. 5. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 6. At the outset, it may be noticed that the impugned orders have been passed in exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the temporary injunction has been granted only upon consideration of the three golden principles of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Apparently both the Courts below have noticed and it is also the case of the petitioner that the private-respondents are in possession of the property in question. Whether they are tenants or not whether their possession is valid or not is the subject matter to be tested in trial, but the fact remains that they have brought on record documents to indicate that they have been depositing the rent in terms of Section 30 of the U.P. Act of 13 of 1972 and other contemporaneous documents to establish their settled possession. Since, both the Courts have come to a conclusion prima-facie that the respondents are in possession, apparently, the proposition that any person in possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law come into play and the exercise of discretion by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court in exercise of their powers of a trial and appellate Court has been exercised judiciously and it does not suffer from any error or this Court to intervene in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is dismissed. September 2, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 5120 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench