HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1274 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant against the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 950 of 2025, Raghvendra Singh and others vs. Hemant Kumar Gupta and others, whereby the plaintiff has been granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and consequently, the defendants first party have been restrained from making interference in the disputed property. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that the trial court has erred in granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant-appellant was in possession of the disputed property and this was proved from the report of the Lekhpal. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the defendant. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and heard on merits. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and perused the impugned order and documents submitted along with appeal. 4. From the plaint averments, it is apparent that O.S. No. 950 of 2025 has been filed by the plaintiffs, claiming ownership of the disputed property on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 12.09.2023 executed in their favour. It was averred that on the basis of this gift deed, the plaintiffs are the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anil Kumar, Jai Prakash Prasad, Savan Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Hemant Kumar Gupta .....Appellant(s) Raghvendra Singh And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) recorded tenure holders of the disputed property. It was further stated that the plaintiffs laid the foundation of a building on the disputed property, whereupon the defendants obstructed them from raising further construction. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have sought a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants first party from interfering in the disputed property bearing No. 1150M, as shown in the plaint map, situated in Mauja Basharatpur, Tappa Kasba, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. 5. The trial court vide impugned order dated 30.08.2025 has recorded a finding that on the basis of the relevant khatauni, it is apparent that the plaintiffs are the recorded tenure holders in the disputed property on the basis of the alleged gift deed and according to the report of the Lekhpal are in its possession and accordingly, the trial court concluded that if the defendants were not restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, then it will cause irreparable damage to the plaintiffs and, as such, the trial court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, aggrieved against which, the defendant is in appeal before this Court. 6. Learned counsel admitted that the defendant-appellant has not filed any objection under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. before the trial court, for vacating the ex-parte injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. It is apparent that the defendant is having an alternative remedy by way of moving the above application but it has not availed it and has straightaway challenged the impugned order, before this Court, by filing the instant appeal. 10. In view of this, this Court refrains from recording any finding regarding the legality of the impugned order and grants liberty to the defendant- appellant to move an appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. before the trial court concerned, for vacating the impugned order, if so advised, in accordance with law. 11. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of. 12. It is directed that if any such application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. is FAFOD No. 1274 of 2025 2 moved by the defendant before the concerned trial court for vacating the impugned order dated 30.08.2025, then it shall be decided within a period of one month from the date when objections are filed by the defendant, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. October 13, 2025 Mayank FAFOD No. 1274 of 2025 3 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad