HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6382 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the Union of India/opposite parties and filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 11.09.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1150 of 2001, whereby the petitioners' application for temporary injunction (Paper No.C-6) was rejected. 3. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.192 of 2002, which has been dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 27.08.2025, passed by Special Judge, Ayurved Scam Case/CBI, Lucknow and the petitioners have challenged the validity of the appellate order also. 4. Sardar Gurbaksh Singh, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession and enjoyment of a raasta shown in the site plan annexed with the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Mohit Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Sardar Bhag Singh And 6 Others .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Railway Baroda House New Delhi Thru. General Manager And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) plaint. The site plan annexed with the plaint shows that towards the north of the house of the plaintiffs there is some open land through which a narrow passage connects the house of the plaintiffs to Kariyappa Road, towards the west of the petitioners' house there is Barha Road, house of Sardar Gurmukh Singh is situated towards the east of the petitioners' house and the houses of Ram Ashray, Gupta Ji and another person are situated towards its south. The boundaries of the petitioners' properties are mentioned in para 2 of the plaint which are as follows: "East arazi Gokul, West road, North raasta 5 feet and thereafter boundary railway, South arazi Gokul." 5. There is apparent discrepancy in the boundaries of the property in dispute mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and in the site plan annexed with the plaint. As per the averments made in the plaint the property in question had been purchased by Smt. Sarjit Kaur, wife of Sardar Gurbaksh Singh through a sale deed dated 06.05.1960 executed by Charan Das. The description of property in the sale deed is a plot having an area of three biswa bearing no.211 Min. situated in Sikandarpur Nazool, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow which is bounded as follows: "East land of Gukul, West road, South land of Gukul, North five feet wide raasta, thereafter boundary wall of railways." 6. Although, the owner of the property as per the sale deed was Smt. Sarjit Kaur, the suit was filed by Sardar Gurbaksh Singh and there was no averment therein that as to how the title passed on from Smt. Sarjit Kaur to Sardar Gurbaksh Singh. 7. The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application holding that the plaintiff could not explain the difference between the description of the property in as much as sale deed mentions that there was a five feet wide passage and thereafter the land of railways towards north of the property, whereas in para 5 of the plaint he has pleaded that door of plaintiff opens towards northern side directly towards the Kariyappa Road. The plaintiffs could not A227 No. 6382 of 2025 2 explain the discrepancy as to how the road situated in northern side of the plaintiffs' house directly opens on the side of Kariyappa Road, whereas there is a passage and boundary wall of railways towards north of the plaintiffs' house. 8. The appellate court also has dismissed the appeal upon failure of the plaintiffs to give any explanation in this regard. The appellate court has also taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs have an ingress and egress of their house towards the west of their house at Barha Road. The trial court and the appellate court held that the petitioners could not establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. 9. In spite of specific query put by the court, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not advance any submission before this court explaining the aforesaid discrepancy in the pleadings made in para 5 of the plaint and the boundaries of the property in dispute mentioned in para 2 of the plaint as well as in the site plan annexed with the plaint. 10. In these circumstances, this court finds no good ground to interfere in the aforesaid satisfactions recorded by learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court that the plaintiffs do not have a prima facie case. 11. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 7, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6382 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench