HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5602 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 prays for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the opposite party no.1 i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraula, District - Balrampur in General Suit No.351 of 2025, Jameer Ahmad versus Shahjahan and others pending before the learned court Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraula, District - Balrampur, in the interest of justice, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. II. Issue a order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.1 to decide the both case General Suit No.351 of 2025, Jameer Ahmad versus Shahjahan and others and General Suit No.216 of 2025, Jameer Ahmad versus Shamshullah and others, in the interest of justice." 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private-respondent No.2 had initially instituted a suit for partition, which came to be registered as R.S. No.216 of 2025, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Utraula, District Balrampur. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted another suit before the same very trial Court, which Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Kant Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shahjahan .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraula Distt. Balrampur And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) came to be registered as R.S. No.351 of 2025, this time seeking a decree of permanent injunction. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the pendency of the earlier suit was not disclosed in the subsequent suit. Certain misrepresentations relating to the boundaries have been made. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the private-respondent No.2 in R.S. No.351 of 2025 has been able to get an injunction order ex-parte vide order dated 29.08.2025 which is causing distress and impinging upon the rights of the present petitioner. Thus, the instant petition has been filed seeking the reliefs which have been noticed above. 6. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the instant petition would be maintainable for the reliefs as prayed for which it has been answered that since earlier the petitioner had approached a Division Bench of this Court, by means of WRIT-C No.7646 of 2025 (Shahjahan v. State of U.P. and others) and the Division Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 12.08.2025 had disposed of the said petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court in accordance with law, hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed for more than one reasons. 8. At the outset, it may be noticed that in R.S. No.351 of 2025, the private-respondent as plaintiff had impleaded Shahjahan (the present petition) and Smt. Tahira as the defendant. Smt. Tahira, who is the defendant No.2 of the suit has not been impleaded in the instant petition. 9. In the instant petition, apart from impleading Jameer Ahmad (the plaintiff of the suit), the present petitioner had impleaded Karamveer Singh and Santosh Kumar, who are apparently some police officers as a party. However, there is no explanation either in the petition as to how the said persons i.e. the respondents No.3 and 4 would have been made a party in the petition when they were never party in the suit as well as the fact that a party i.e. co-defendant is not a party in the instant petition. A227 No. 5602 of 2025 2 10. It has also not been indicated as to whether the petitioner had moved any application before the trial Court seeking vacation of an injunction order inasmuch as the order dated 29.08.2025 which is under challenged before this Court, the trial Court while granting the said order had put a caveat that this order may not operate in case if the plaintiff (the private- respondent No.2) has concealed or misrepresented any facts. 11. A specific query was also put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has any alternate remedy to which he could not answer. 12. Be that as it may, apart from the error of mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties coupled with the fact of having a statutory alternate remedy in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC as well as having a remedy of appeal under Order XLIII CPC for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition which is dismissed. However, it made clear that in case if the petitioner wishes to adopt any of the remedies as may be available to him in law, mere dismissal of this petition may not come in his way and the said recourse if taken would be considered and decided the Court concerned on its own merits. September 23, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 5602 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench