HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5334 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant petition assails the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in Misc. Civil Appeal no.02 of 2025 whereby the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC filed by the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D) South Court no.24 Sultanpur has been affirmed. As a consequence, the application for injunction has been dismissed by the two courts. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has a registered agreement to sell in his favour relating to the property in question. Since, the defendant of the suit has violated the terms of the said agreement, accordingly, the petitioner had instituted the suit for specific performance of contract and injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner had also moved an application seeking interim injunction which by means of order dated 02.01.2025 has been rejected by the trial court. Assailing the said order in the appeal which also met the same fate, consequently, the petitioner before this Court submits that since rights of the petitioner are involved and the respondents are alienating the property hence in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings the injunction ought to have been granted and this aspect of the matter has not been appropriately considered by the Court. Having considered the aforesaid submission as well as from a perusal of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dilip Kumar Pandey, Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Naseem .....Petitioner(s) Dist. Judge Dist. Sultanpur And 2 Otherss .....Respondent(s) the material on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance of contract. It is also not disputed that in terms of the said agreement the possession has not been handed over to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the issue whether the defendant is alienating the property or some third party rights have been created, needless to say will be subject matter of trial and in any case, the same could also be governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. In this view of the matter, where two courts have not exercised or rather has refrained from granting the injunction, this Court does not find that there is any cogent reason or error in the orders passed by the two courts to enable this Court to intervene in the matter, accordingly, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the court concerned seeking expedition and in case if such an application is moved the court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. September 10, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 5334 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench