HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5718 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi in Regular Suit No.36 of 2018, whereby an application for temporary injunction, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter carried the matter in an appeal before the First Additional District Judge, Hardoi in Misc. Civil Appeal No.24 of 2022 which also came to be dismissed by means of the judgment dated 28.05.2025 and being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has an agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property executed by the late mother of the private-respondents No.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioner on 27.03.1983. 4. It is further stated that on the basis of the said agreement to sell, the petitioner was handed over the possession and he has also raised constructions and is in peaceful possession since last three decades and odd. 5. It is urged that in view thereof, the private-respondents No.3 and 4 attempted to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner which Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalla Ji Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ram Naresh .....Petitioner(s) Additional Session Judge Court No. 1 Hardoi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) laid the petitioner to file a suit for permanent injunction. Thus, the averments were made and brought to the notice of the trial Court, who dismissed the application for injunction and the same has also been affirmed by the first Appellate Court and the said findings are bad in the eyes of law. 6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, apparently as evident from the copy of the plaint, which is on record as Annexure No.3, it indicates that the right of the petitioner is emanating from the alleged agreement to sell dated 27.03.1983. It is further noticed that the said agreement to sell is unregistered, however, even if the plea of permanent injunction is to be seen in context with the averments made by the plaintiff, the fact remains that both the Courts have recorded a finding that prima-facie the petitioner has been unable to establish his possession which is an essential ingredient to examine as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, a remedy of temporary injunction can be granted or not. Even before this Court, there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner appears to be in possession. 7. In light thereof, the findings recorded by the two Courts are pure findings of act which cannot be said to be perverse and the manner in which the two Courts have exercised their jurisdiction cannot be faulted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to contest his suit on merits and needless to say that the suit would be decided on the strength of the evidence led by the parties. September 24, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 5718 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench