HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6568 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Udai Bhan Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.11.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/FTC New Gonda in Regular Suit No.2331 of 2017, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo on the property in dispute. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.25 of 2021, which has been dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Gonda and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the appellate order also. 3. The appellate court has recorded in the impugned judgement that the plaintiff claims the property in dispute on the basis of a will. The Commissioner report supports the claim of the plaintiff that she is in possession of the property, which is adjacent to the plaintiff's house. There is a ten feet wide lane between the house of the appellant-petitioner and the house of the plaintiff. The defendant claims to have purchased the property through sale deed dated 12.10.2017. 4. The rival claims can only be decided by learned trial court after the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence and the appellate court found the order directing the parties to maintain status-quo, not liable for any interference. 5. Having gone through the order passed by learned trial court and the appellate court, I am of the considered view that both the courts have Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udai Bhan Pandey, Shivendra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ved Prakash .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Session Judge Fifth Special Judge Gangster Act Gonda And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) exercised their discretion on the basis of sound reasons and their orders do not suffer from any such error or illegality as may warrant interference by this court in exercise of power of its superintendence. 6. However, since the suit is pending since the year 2017, the petition is disposed of and a direction is issued to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/FTC New Gonda to decide Regular Suit No.2331 of 2017 expeditiously in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals. November 12, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6568 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench