HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6360 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2025 (Ram Chandar Vs. Kamla Devi and another) by means of which learned appellate court has rejected the application having No. 4-Ga filed by the petitioner-appellant under Order 41, Rule, 5 of the C.P.C. 3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the aforesaid appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 28, Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 1188 of 1989 and the said appeal was admitted vide order dated 20.03.2025 and notices were issued to the respondents. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sharad Nandan Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajeet Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Ram Chandar .....Petitioner(s) Upper District Judge Court No. 2 Distt. Pratapgarh And Another .....Respondent(s) appellate court while admitting the appeal fixed the matter for hearing on the application (4-C) filed under Order 41, Rule 5 of the C.P.C., along with the said appeal. The respondent pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2025 appeared in the matter and filed their objections against the said application (4-C). It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner- appellant that the respondent has also filed a cross-appeal, which is pending consideration before the same court. 4. The court below vide order dated 30.05.2025 passed a detailed order inter alia holding that the application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has become infructuous on account of the fact that the order and decree dated 24.02.2025 against which the appeal has been filed, has already been executed on 18.03.2025. However, the learned appellate court on the application of the petitioner-appellant filed under Section 151 C.P.C. directed the parties to maintain status quo taking into consideration the closure of the court during summer vacation. 5. The aforesaid order of status-quo dated 30.05.2025 on the petitioner's application under Section 151 C.P.C. was limited only for the period of summer vacation in the Courts in the month of June 2025, as is evident from the embeded condition that the effect of the order shall come to an end with the end of the summer vacation. 6. The petitioner on 01.07.2025 preferred another application under Section 151 C.P.C. with the prayer for extension of the interim order and for the stay of the order and decree dated 24.02.2025 till the disposal of appeal. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed a detailed order observing therein that the order and decree dated 24.02.2025 has been executed way-back on 18.03.2025 and thereafter an A227 No. 6360 of 2025 2 order to this effect has already been passed on the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 of C.P.C., therefore, the same is liable to be rejected having become infructuous and was rejected. 7. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2025 (Ram Chandar Vs. Kamla Devi and another) is already pending for disposal before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Pratapgarh but there is apprehension that the respondent may change the nature of the land and may disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land in question by raising construction during pendency of the appeal. It is also apprehended that the respondent may create third party right in the property in question, in that event the purpose of the appeal would be frustrated. 8. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent has strongly opposed the petition. He submits that no such prayer has ever been made by the petitioner before the learned Court below and there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioner - appellant for the first time before this Court. 9. Be that as it may, without entering into merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the instant petition pending, having been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Pratapgarh to expeditiously decide the Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2025 (Ram Chandar Vs. Kamla Devi and another) preferably within a maximum period of six months, unless there is any legal impediment. A227 No. 6360 of 2025 3 10. It is further provided that in case the petitioner-appellant files an application for any interim protection in the aforesaid appeal, within seven working days from today, the court concerned may consider the same by passing an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 11. It is further provided that in case the said application is filed within the period as provided here-in-above, the same shall be decided by the court concerned within a period of one month from the date of its filing. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of. December 2, 2025 Virendra A227 No. 6360 of 2025 4 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench