HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6502 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Syed Mohd Mahmood Hasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgement and order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge Ayurveda Scam Case/C.B.I., Lucknow in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2024 whereby the appeal filed by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 against an order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Malihabad in Regular Suit No.1104 of 2020 granting a temporary injunction to the plaintiffs, has been allowed and the temporary injunction order dated 08.10.2024 has been set-aside. 3. The petitioner has impleaded the District Judge, Lucknow as opposite party No.1 to the petition, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that civil courts deciding the matters should not be impleaded as opposite parties to the petitions. Accordingly, the petition suffers from the defect of mis-joinder of parties. 4. The plaintiff has filed Regular Suit No.1104 of 2020 seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her possession in respect of House No.273/58 measuring 970 sq. ft. situated at Mohalla- Chamaranpurva (Chamarankheda), Ward- Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow, which is bounded as below:- "East- 5 feet wide passage West- property of Rishi Nigam Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Mohd Mahmood Hasan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shamim Bano .....Petitioner(s) Distt. Judge Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) North- 5 feet wide passage South- 26 feet wide passage" 5. The petitioner claim to have purchased the house through a sale deed dated 28.01.2016 and she had purchased another property bearing the same house number measuring 750 sq. ft. from Lalita Devi through a sale deed dated 28.12.2017. Lalita Devi had purchased the house bearing No.273/58 measuring 220 sq. ft. from Jagdevi through a sale deed dated 27.12.2013. She stated that the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess her from the property. 6. The defendants filed their objections against the temporary injunction application stating that the property in question is not situated in Mohalla- Chamaranpurva (Chamarankheda) and it is situated at Mohalla- Rajendra Nagar. The Amin report also stated that the property in dispute is situated in Mohalla- Rajendra Nagar. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property through two sale deeds executed by Lalita Devi regarding 970 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. whereas Lalita Devi had purchased merely 220 sq. ft. from Smt. Jagdevi and 750 sq. ft. from her daughter Rajni. 7. The predecessor in interest of the defendants had filed Regular Suit No.393 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), (South), Lucknow against Jagdevi wife of Banarasi Prasad. After death of Jagdevi, her daughter Rajni was substituted in her place. Jagdevi had filed a written statement claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. The sale deeds in support of the property were executed by Jagdevi and her daughter Rajni in favour of Lalita Devi during pendency of the suit, without seeking leave of the Court. Subsequently, the suit was decreed by means of a judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 and the claim of Smt. Jagdevi and her daughter Rajni was not accepted by the Court. 8. Although, the trial Court has noted the aforesaid contention of the defendants, it has allowed the temporary injunction application without dealing with the same. 9. The Appellate Court has appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has further held that no person can transfer a better title than he himself has. As it has been held in the judgement passed in Suit No.393 of 1993 that Jagdevi had no right title or interest in the property in suit, the sale deeds executed by Jagdevi and her daughter do not confer any right, title or interest on the plaintiff. 10. The Appellate Court found that no prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss and A227 No. 6502 of 2025 2 injury could not also be proved by the plaintiff. 11. The aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Court deals with the entire relevant facts and circumstances of the case and is based on sound reasoning. 12. There appears to be no error or illegality in the appellate order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge Ayurveda Scam Case/C.B.I., Lucknow in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2024 warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence. 13. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. November 11, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 6502 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench