HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5708 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge is the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.1 Pratapgarh in Misc. Civil Appeal no.16 of 2018 which arises under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Regular Suit no.39 of 2020 whereby the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo which has been affirmed by the first appellate court. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a suit seeking injunction wherein considering the rival contentions the trial court had granted an ad interim injunction order. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal no.16 of 2018 which also came to be dismissed on 19.07.2024. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the said appeal was pending, the trial court had amended the earlier order and made the injunction/status quo order operative till the disposal of the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that once the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) was pending before the first appellate court, it did not confer any jurisdiction on the trial court to have amended the order and, thus, the order is bad in the eyes of law. Moreover, taking benefit of the said order of status quo, the private respondent are interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner relating to the fraud which is alleged to be his Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rama Shankar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shiv Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) Ram Dular Singh And 11 Others .....Respondent(s) grove land. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no interim order or stay of the proceedings before the trial court, thus, for the said reason mere amendment making the order operative till the disposal of the suit does not amount to any amendment or infringement to the rights of the parties. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record. Apparently, the appellate court has noticed that the parties are yet to go to trial. Looking to the contentions of the rival parties, the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo i.e. say that the property was preserved and this was in sound exercise of jurisdiction by the first appellate court and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dalpat Kumar and Ors vs Prahlad Singh and Ors; (1992) 1 SCC 719, the first appellate court declined to interfere. This Court further notices that yet the issues have not been framed and the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. In such circumstances, preserving the property by the order of status quo cannot be said to be dehors the principle of law or it amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction vested. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any material irregularity while passing the order by the first appellate court, accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. September 22, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 5708 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench