HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6294 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Gupta along with Mrs. Ruchi Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vasu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. This Court on 07.11.2025 passed the following order: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vasu Deo Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 2. This Court directed the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow to seek specific instructions as to why the application (6-Ga) filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, which was fixed for disposal on 17.10.2025, has not yet been decided. 3. Ms. Kavya Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the basis of instructions dated 07.11.2025 received from the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, has informed the Court that aforesaid application filed in the Regular Suit No. 2160 of 2025 (Rayeesh Bano Versus Ranjeeta Singh & others) has already been decided on 04.11.2025. 4. It would not be out of context to note here that in the earlier session of the proceeding today, both the contesting parties very categorically made statement before this Court that no order on the the aforesaid application (6-Ga) has been passed on the same despite the arguments on behalf of the parties have already been completed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Gupta, Smt. Ruchi Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jai Prakash Awasthi, Vashu Deo Mishra Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi And Another .....Petitioner(s) Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation that on the one hand, it has been stated that the application (6-Ga) is pending for orders and on the other hand, it has been informed that it was decided way back on 04.11.2025. This Court is of the opinion that it would be apt to direct the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to produce the copy of the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2025 before this Court on the next date along-with the details of the proceedings. 6. Put up this case in the list of fresh cases on 11.11.2025." 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2025, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Court on the basis of instructions dated 10.11.2025 received by him from the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, apprised this Court that the order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was passed on 04.11.2025. He produced the copy of the said order for the perusal of the Court. Sri Jain has also produced the copy of the proceedings of the case showing that the matter was heard on 24.10.2025 whereby 04.11.2025 was fixed for orders. The copy of aforesaid instructions is taken on record. 4. In view of the above, this Court finds that when the injunction application (6-Ga) has already been finally decided vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending. 5. Accordingly, without adverting on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to take legal recourse in the manner as prescribed under law against the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2025, if they so desire. November 11, 2025 Arun A227 No. 6294 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench