HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9984 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Y.M. Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Rai, the learned State Counsel, Sri R.D. Tiwari, ,the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and perused the records. 2. The learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of an order dated 29.01.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali, Lucknow rejecting his application for temporary injunction in Civil Suit No.1176 of 2023. The petitioners has challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil Misc. Appeal No.124 of 2024, which has been dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 02.09.2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Lucknow and the validity of the appellate order has also been challenged in the instant petition. 3. In Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the validity of orders passed by Civil Courts cannot be challenged by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State of U.P. is not a party to the civil suit or to the appeal in which the impugned order has been passed yet the State of U.P. has been impleaded as an opposite party which shows that the petition suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties. 4. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali, Lucknow has been impleaded as opposite party no.2 to the petition whereas in the cases of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that courts whose orders are challenged before the High Court Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yaduvansh Mani Singh Yadav, Virendra Pratap Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ram Daras Pal, Ram Dev Tiwari Lalta Prasad And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) cannot be impleaded as an opposite party to the petition. 5. Even on merits, the impugned order appears to be well reasoned order which does not suffer from any perversity. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. October 17, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 9984 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench