Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35360 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2400 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Rajbala And 3 Others Respondent :- Sanjeev Agarwal And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "I. direct the parties not to change, alter or modify the nature of Suit Properties until the final disposal of the Original Suit No. 78 of 2025 and Original Suit No. 86 of 2025 pending in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division Chatta Mathura II. direct the Court below to decide the Original Suit No. 78 of 2025 and Original Suit No. 86 of 2025 together as they are between the same parties and the issues of both suits are intricately linked with each other." It is contended that the petitioners had instituted Original Suit No.78 of 2025, while they are the defendants in Original Suit No.86 of 2025. In the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents being Original Suit No.86 of 2025, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved which was allowed by the trial Court. In the suit instituted by the petitioners being Original Suit No.78 of 2025, an application under Section 151 CPC was moved, wherein the order of status quo was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there are two conflictory orders and the plot of land are adjoining, as such, he is not able to make necessary constructions as the order of status quo has been passed. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Dr. Kazimunnisa (Dead) By Legal Representative and Others Vs. Zakia Sultana (Dead) by Legal Representative and Others, (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 208. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case that in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs- respondents no.3 and 4 being Original Suit No.86 of 2025, temporary injunction has been granted, against which, petitioners have remedy of filing a misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC. The present petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy provided under the law. Moreover, a direction cannot be granted to decide the Original Suit No.78 of 2025 along with Original Suit No.86 of 2025 in view of the recent judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 6 SCC 267. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 SK Goswami Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad